Family Court Experience (Contact Order)

Bailey101

I can't believe that people are giving shoe*diva crap for not wanting her very young child to be looked after by someone when they may drunk or hungover. He shouldn't be drinking more then one or two when he's looking after the wee girl and if he's drinking excessively in the run up to access then he could well still be under the influence (not able to safely drive etc).

I also don't see how she's trying to control the ex - it looks to me that she's trying to control the safety of her daughter and the competence of her care-givers. If she had posted about a childminder drinking excessively or being hungover then everyone would have been telling her to fire them immediately!!

Obviously the judge thought it was a pretty big issue and it's his/her opinion that matters not a load of strangers on the internet!

Shoe*diva I hope you get this sorted soon and can ignore the people saying that you're out of order.

xx

eta And why the hell shouldn't she expect the child's father to take a more equal share of the child care. He helped make his daughter, he should be providing equal amounts of care and support and putting the wee girl before his social life.

Sommer43

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

I dont need to be careful. I know that I live my life squeaky clean. I dont go out and get plasterd with the girls once a month to the point I cant function the next day.

He made the application as I had stopped staying contact due to his drinkijg and other issues. The drinking was a issue when we were together, its been a issue since parting. I didnt just respond to the petition with mud slinging accusations. I responded witth my reasons behind my actions.

I dont feel the need to explain myself further because I would rather not write the entire sorry story down. I am content in the knowledge that the courts have our DD best interests at heart.

That's not what you stated in your opening post though... You stated that he had served you papers when he came to collect your daughter.

People who lead squeaky clean lives, don't have to say they do, they simply do.

At this moment in time, you look like a scorned ex partner or wife, who wants to hurt her ex via her child. He came to collect your daughter, you said. You want her to see her father, you said, that doesn't sound to me like a person who has stopped contact.

Of course we cannot know the whole story, it is likely to be very intricate. See, this is the thing, the written word is so mis-read. You opened up your post claiming your ex has served you with papers for a contact order.

Many people sit in the evenings with a glass of wine or two, after a long day's work to unwind with their children in the house. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At all in any way or shape or form. (Unfortunately, it ran into five bottles a night for me and waking up in the back of police car to get me to see sense) That does not make them an alcoholic.

You cannot be that concerned about his drinking, he comes to collect your daughter and by that, I am assuming you allow him to leave with her in the car.

Are your child support issues sorted out? That's often another reason why people, namely mothers, lash out and stop contact, when they are not being paid.

The court may have your daughter's best interests at heart. My experience of the family law courts is long and lengthy. CAFCASS are an agency. They are the clients of the court. The moment you mention drink, they are akin to social workers, the first erm of something sinister, they will pull all the out stops to ensure their report at the end of the day looks favourable.

In my case it was true, I was incapable of looking after my own children. My ex husband had to look after my children, I was a bitter, scruffy, damaged and roaring drunk woman who couldn't handle the fact that my marriage had broken down. Make sure, before you head down the road of destroying your ex and his relationship with his daughter, it is for the correct reasons.

ValHaller

Bailey101 wrote: »

I can't believe that people are giving shoe*diva crap for not wanting her very young child to be looked after by someone when they may drunk or hungover. He shouldn't be drinking more then one or two when he's looking after the wee girl and if he's drinking excessively in the run up to access then he could well still be under the influence (not able to safely drive etc).

I also don't see how she's trying to control the ex - it looks to me that she's trying to control the safety of her daughter and the competence of her care-givers. If she had posted about a childminder drinking excessively or being hungover then everyone would have been telling her to fire them immediately!!

Obviously the judge thought it was a pretty big issue and it's his/her opinion that matters not a load of strangers on the internet!

Shoe*diva I hope you get this sorted soon and can ignore the people saying that you're out of order.

xx

eta And why the hell shouldn't she expect the child's father to take a more equal share of the child care. He helped make his daughter, he should be providing equal amounts of care and support and putting the wee girl before his social life.

Crap? No one is suggesting that shoe*diva should entrust her child to the care of someone not capable through drink. Least of all me.

And yes, he should be putting his child before his drinking.

But if shoe*diva manages to make him take the child midweek, the court order will stop him drinking 10 days in a row out of 14. This is entirely the wrong way to stop him drinking and to my mind ordering the 48hours prior to be dry is a quite excessive imposition considering the actual requirement that he be sober when caring for the child.. The outcome if he does take her midweek is that the order will be ignored, with very little doubt.

Either the order should be no more than 24 hours prior or the contact should be supervised. The current order as I read it is interim. Shoe*diva has choices to make.

princeofpounds

Personally, I suspect the judge put the 48hrs in for a reason rather than arbitrarily and it might have revolved around getting the father sober for himself (and the life he can then lead to provide for his child) as much as for the specific times he is in control of the child.

If the father objects to 48hrs he can always make his case and the OP can refuse to contest it. But it's still down to the judge.

princeofpounds

Many people sit in the evenings with a glass of wine or two, after a long day's work to unwind with their children in the house. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At all in any way or shape or form. (Unfortunately, it ran into five bottles a night for me and waking up in the back of police car to get me to see sense) That does not make them an alcoholic.

IIRC the OP talked about a bottle of wine and a bottle of strongbow almost every night. That's pretty much at alcoholic levels.

Obviously the OP might not be telling the truth, but I don't think we can judge that either way.

Sommer43

princeofpounds wrote: »

IIRC the OP talked about a bottle of wine and a bottle of strongbow almost every night. That's pretty much at alcoholic levels.

Obviously the OP might not be telling the truth, but I don't think we can judge that either way.

When they were together, as she has quoted. It is in the thread, back on page 1.

Alcoholic levels do not maketh an alcoholic. An addiction is when the choice is removed.

I absolutely agree, a person should not be repsonsible for a child under the influence. Trust me, I know more than most people and I have had to look at my own behaviour.

It is a well known fact, that when the word "court" is mentioned all rationale goes out of the window. Parents who had children begin to pick holes in each other's ability to be parents. Unless shoediva is with her ex at every opportunity to be able to assess his alcohol intake, then how can she possibly know what he is drinking. Now, his drinking may well have been an issue, when they were together. But how can she know that he is drinking when he has contact with his child?

She also stated, once, that she happened to be in the area and that he was not at home at 9pm when he had his child. She was dropping her friend off, his car wasn't there, he lied to her and said he was home. She confronted him about this. She also stated he chose to leave the family unit... when it came to her discussing Christmas contact. So, for me, the story is not adding up, that's not to say, she's lying, it is to point out that here, we have a man, who has been accused, virtually, of being an alcoholic, is now subject to a court's alcohol testing levels, on whose say so? His ex. Before giving a person a serious condition, which no person has any right to do, then evidence should be collated. Were this in a court of law? It would be laughed out. If ever keeping a child out till gone 9pm at night was a crime. He could have taken her to friends, what he does with his own child, is nobody else's business. If there are serious issues with alcohol, then contact should have been stopped and then gone down this road, which would have been implemented by the mother. The father was the one who initiated court proceedings, not the mother.

Bailey101

Valhaller, yes the op is getting crap - she's been called controlling, passive aggressive and was accused of being a bitter ex who's trying to ruin the father's life. If I was her and I found out that my ex was drinking while in charge of my child, was handing her over to his mates so he could go out and socialise and was screwing up her routine with no regard to the longer term issues that causes I would be raging! He's spending very little time with his child as it is and he's complaining about an extra few days. And from the sounds of it he has an issue with alcohol if he can't not drink during the week - it's not normal to choose drinking over spending time with your child.

We are only hearing one side of the story obviously, but with the information given I really can't understand how anyone could be siding with the ex.

If I was in his shoes and was told that I couldn't drink for the period surrounding access with my child then I would have no problem with this and I certainly wouldn't choose alcohol over increased visits.

And as for him refusing to have her during the week, why the hell should he responsible for HIS daughter only 4 days a month? He made half of her, he should be taking on half of the care, costs, everything!!

I just can't wrap my head around why anyone is defending him choosing alcohol over more time with his daughter.

GlasweJen

Except the parent with care can claim benefits to help towards child care and claim maintenance from the father. Dad can't do either of these so I would expect mum to pay the majority of child care as she has 2 streams of money coming in that dad doesn't.

Bailey101

GlasweJen wrote: »

Except the parent with care can claim benefits to help towards child care and claim maintenance from the father. Dad can't do either of these so I would expect mum to pay the majority of child care as she has 2 streams of money coming in that dad doesn't.

I'm not talking about paying for childminders, I'm talking about the parents looking after the child. Things like picking the child up from playschool, putting them to bed, playing with them, taking them to the doctor, making them dinner should be done equally and for one parent to to refuse to do this because it impacts on their social life and eats into their drinking time is shocking behaviour from someone who is meant to be a one of the most important people in a child's life.

ValHaller

Bailey101 wrote: »

I just can't wrap my head around why anyone is defending him choosing alcohol over more time with his daughter.

It is not a case of defending him. To my mind he must be sober when he has the child. A 48 hour dry period prior to that is excessive - if that long really is required, then he should not have unsupervised access.

Sommer43 makes an excellent point that he has been damned as an alcoholic solely on the word of shoe*diva. She is hardly unbiased and even if she did not set out to, she may have painted it blacker than reality. If a hint of a smile crossed her face when the order for 48hours dry was granted - and if the situation is not as bad as the court was told - then grounds have been put in place for a lot of resentment.

That resentment means that the choice he is actually making is whehter or not to let his ex get away with using the courts to control his life. It is not a choice of alcohol over his daughter - although the outcome is the same.