Family Court Experience (Contact Order)

Sommer43

Bailey101 wrote: »

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

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

But you're not her, are you? Equally, you have just called the father, a man who chooses alchohol over his daughter, that he gives over his child to his mates while he goes out and socialising. You don't know that to be true. The father, was the one who instigated the court order, not the mother. That tells me the father was going down the correct routes. She has reported to CAFCASS, her version of his drinking, and he has been advised what to do. He is under no obligation to take these tests. So why should he? It is an invasion of his privacy. On the mother's say so? He is a drunk? Because she has reported that WHEN they were together, he used to drink a bottle of strongbow and a bottle of wine... She was happy for him to drink this then while they were together?

On, the one hand you're stating she is doing the right thing, because he's a drunk, on the other you're claiming he should have more contact with his child and a court should be the one to make him do it. Family Law courts and judges can only impose orders, how many people have you seen who breach court orders and nothing ever happens? They are not enforceable orders, only if a person continually breaches an order and then is there a chance that a judge can rule further orders.

Here is a father, who has given a mother a contact order paper, to attend court to discuss his child's contact, the mother, for whatever reason has retaliated with "He drinks too much" The father walks away with an order that he has to prove his sobriety? Shoediva is happy to claim "But the court made the order, it is not my fault" The court made the order based on CAFCASS's report which was based on what the mother told her.

The mother is hacked off, because the father messes her around with contact, he has liked a few drinks in his time, he left her, he applies for a contact order, via the court (were he such a drunk, would he be that daft to want to go through the courts) mother is not happy with the order, she lashes out and claims all sorts of behaviours to retaliate. It's a typical scenario of everyday Family Law court situations and warring parents. I know, because I was once one of those mothers who would have said anything to make my husband pay for leaving me. I don't know how much you know about the human mind, but you're seeing only words on a forum... Which say "Man drinks while in charge of child, mother slaps order on him to steer clear of booze while in charge of child" On that basis alone, I can see why you would come up with the conclusions you have. I, however, prefer to look a tad deeper.

Bailey101

ValHaller wrote: »

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.

I agree that it sounds like a power struggle, but whether or not the op is completely truthful on this board, the judge thought that there was enough of a situation to impose strict restriction and has done so. None of us are involved so we don't know for sure the exact ins and outs of what's gone on, but courts thought it was an issue and that's enough for me to believe there's a problem.

And as for her smiling about the ruling, if I thought my child was being poorly cared for or emotionaly neglected due to alcohol use, these conditions would have me grinning like the cheshire cat.

If he can't swallow his resentment for his ex and the courts for his daughter's sake, then he needs to seriously rethink his outlook on being a parent and prioritise his life a bit better. I understand what you're saying about his view that the ex is controlling his life, but being stubborn and not doing the best for your child because you want to prove a point is not how a good parent behaves.

Sommer43

ValHaller wrote: »

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.

The keyword is resentment. That's the one, whereby all destruction begins... Resentments are like a cancer. My father spent many years baying for my mother's blood and telling me that she was a liar and a thief... When this was not the case at all. It took me 20 years to find my mother and her side of the story was very different.

It is Family Law that can and do allow families to erode. I took myself out of it, even though I did not see my children, and rightly so until I became a sober, functioning member of soceity and it is only now, that I have been able to recover my relationship with my children. They are now adults, they have asked questions and together we came through it. But as adult children they only too well remember the pain of the two people they loved most in the world tearing each other up in court.

Sommer43

Bailey101 wrote: »

And as for her smiling about the ruling, if I thought my child was being poorly cared for or emotionaly neglected due to alcohol use, these conditions would have me grinning like the cheshire cat.

This statement alone shows the true meaning of the cliche "Hell hath no fury........."

:beer:

Bailey101

Sommer43 wrote: »

But you're not her, are you? Equally, you have just called the father, a man who chooses alchohol over his daughter, that he gives over his child to his mates while he goes out and socialising. You don't know that to be true. The father, was the one who instigated the court order, not the mother. That tells me the father was going down the correct routes. She has reported to CAFCASS, her version of his drinking, and he has been advised what to do. He is under no obligation to take these tests. So why should he? It is an invasion of his privacy. On the mother's say so? He is a drunk? Because she has reported that WHEN they were together, he used to drink a bottle of strongbow and a bottle of wine... She was happy for him to drink this then while they were together?

On, the one hand you're stating she is doing the right thing, because he's a drunk, on the other you're claiming he should have more contact with his child and a court should be the one to make him do it. Family Law courts and judges can only impose orders, how many people have you seen who breach court orders and nothing ever happens? They are not enforceable orders, only if a person continually breaches an order and then is there a chance that a judge can rule further orders.

Here is a father, who has given a mother a contact order paper, to attend court to discuss his child's contact, the mother, for whatever reason has retaliated with "He drinks too much" The father walks away with an order that he has to prove his sobriety? Shoediva is happy to claim "But the court made the order, it is not my fault" The court made the order based on CAFCASS's report which was based on what the mother told her.

The mother is hacked off, because the father messes her around with contact, he has liked a few drinks in his time, he left her, he applies for a contact order, via the court (were he such a drunk, would he be that daft to want to go through the courts) mother is not happy with the order, she lashes out and claims all sorts of behaviours to retaliate. It's a typical scenario of everyday Family Law court situations and warring parents. I know, because I was once one of those mothers who would have said anything to make my husband pay for leaving me. I don't know how much you know about the human mind, but you're seeing only words on a forum... Which say "Man drinks while in charge of child, mother slaps order on him to steer clear of booze while in charge of child" On that basis alone, I can see why you would come up with the conclusions you have. I, however, prefer to look a tad deeper.

You can look as deep as you like but anything that hasn't been stated by the op is an assumption, and since the judge has deemed the no alcohol for 48 hrs necessary then I'm going to look at the ruling and use that as a basis for my opinion. I'm not going to make assumptions like you did, and just because you made an innocents man's life miserable doesn't mean that you can assume everyone else is out to do the same. The op may well be vindictive and manipulative, or she could also just be a concerned mother at the end of her tether with her irresponsible ex. We'll never know for sure.

Also I'm certainly not saying a drunk should have more contact with a child. What I am saying is that a parent should want to be sober enough to spend as much time as possible with their child, and anyone who chooses alcohol over sharing the raising of their child needs to rethink their priorities.

Sommer43

Bailey101 wrote: »

You can look as deep as you like but anything that hasn't been stated by the op is an assumption, and since the judge has deemed the no alcohol for 48 hrs necessary then I'm going to look at the ruling and use that as a basis for my opinion. I'm not going to make assumptions like you did, and just because you made an innocents man's life miserable doesn't mean that you can assume everyone else is out to do the same. The op may well be vindictive and manipulative, or she could also just be a concerned mother at the end of her tether with her irresponsible ex. We'll never know for sure.

Also I'm certainly not saying a drunk should have more contact with a child. What I am saying is that a parent should want to be sober enough to spend as much time as possible with their child, and anyone who chooses alcohol over sharing the raising of their child needs to rethink their priorities.

Then get yourself a job as a CAFCASS officer, just look at the marvellous work you could do with all those alcoholics and drunks making miserable lives of innocent people... You'd be brilliant, m'am.

Bailey101

Sommer43 wrote: »

Bailey101 wrote: »

And as for her smiling about the ruling, if I thought my child was being poorly cared for or emotionaly neglected due to alcohol use, these conditions would have me grinning like the cheshire cat.

This statement alone shows the true meaning of the cliche "Hell hath no fury........."

:beer:

So you think that being happy because a judge has ruled that your child can't in an unhealthy situation (because despite what you think having a drunk parent around a child is unhealthy as is passing off your child to friends on the already sparse contact days) isn't something to be pleased about? It's nothing to do with 'hell hath no fury' it's to do with not wanting a child to be miserable.

ValHaller

Bailey101 wrote: »

I agree that it sounds like a power struggle, but whether or not the op is completely truthful on this board, the judge thought that there was enough of a situation to impose strict restriction and has done so. None of us are involved so we don't know for sure the exact ins and outs of what's gone on, but courts thought it was an issue and that's enough for me to believe there's a problem.

And as for her smiling about the ruling, if I thought my child was being poorly cared for or emotionaly neglected due to alcohol use, these conditions would have me grinning like the cheshire cat.

If he can't swallow his resentment for his ex and the courts for his daughter's sake, then he needs to seriously rethink his outlook on being a parent and prioritise his life a bit better. I understand what you're saying about his view that the ex is controlling his life, but being stubborn and not doing the best for your child because you want to prove a point is not how a good parent behaves.

Having mentioned whether he is acting out of resentment, we could consider whether OP is similarly driven.

There is something out of balance about him applying for access when he had it according to the OP and then rejecting midweek access once there is an order. But I can see that if he is distrustful that access will be continued, he might go for a contact order before access is denied. So why might he be distrustful?

Equally, OP raises the issue of drink in the proceedings, which seems certain to generate restrictions in the contact order. When this does not reduce the contact but places an onerous requirement on the father not just to be sober, but to be dry for 10 days in a row out of 14, she is surprised that he is choosy over the contact.

I would hope that if you grinned like a cheshire cat, you would not be upset if the ex did not take up all of the contact available.

She needs to accept that he is the way he is. There is nothing coming from the family court which is going to have any effect on his drinking other than to increase it.

meer53

I thought Cafcass reports presented both sides of the story ?

I saw the one my ex had from them, in relation to his fight for custody of his children with his new partner. The report that was presented to the court had 2 reports, one on him and one on her. The judge agreed with Cafcass recommendations that his children should reside with him.

Bailey101

Sommer43 wrote: »

Then get yourself a job as a CAFCASS officer, just look at the marvellous work you could do with all those alcoholics and drunks making miserable lives of innocent people... You'd be brilliant, m'am.

I'm going to assume that your reply was sarcasm. I have no sympathy for alcoholic parents who don't do everything they can to seek help as it ruins the lifes of the people around them. Once you have a child, it's your responsibility to make sure that they aren't subjected to things that will hurt them, and an alcoholic parent will cause more hurt then I can describe.