Family Court Experience (Contact Order)

Sommer43

krok wrote: »

The op was taken to court by her x, That states that he was not happy with the op giving him contact, so had to be enforced with a court order.
In a family court any partner can allege anything without any evidence at all.

Just because the op says he drinks too much does not mean that he does.
However as soon as the demon drink is mentioned in any family court, then cafcass has to get involved.

If cafcass or the judge thought that there was any chance of harm to the child, then he would not get full contact.

In my opinion, but i do not know all the facts is that the x has done the right thing in taking the op to court over contact. If the op then causes problems over contact then he can go back to court to have it enforced and the op punished. That is why he has taken the op to court.

Why else would he do it.

Exactly. This is the point many seem to be missing. The judge orders a CAFCASS report at the Directions Hearing, whereby a CAFCASS officer is present and the judge will order a CAFCASS report. The mother has not simply been presented with an order, asked to turn up and CAFCASS are suddenly involved. The first hearing would be a Directions hearing, however, for CAFCASS to place their report and the judge to state the father should have hair follicle testing, this means that this sounds like it is a review hearing. The judge will make an order, which tallies up with the alcohol testing, i.e, in the child's best interests.

Also, on application, there should have been a mediation hearing, which is now compulsory in child contact cases. The father has initiated court proceedings, for his reasons which according to Shoediva is because she stopped contact (although she said something completely different on page 1) So mediation hearing has to be in there somewhere. They have been separated, at the time of posting for four months. Judges would like nothing more than for two parents to rock up with an agreement in place that is beneficial to the child, stamps the order and away both parents go. Maybe with a review in six months to see how contact is going. Then the case is closed.

Mrs.W_2

The last couple of pages in this thread are text book examples of OP baiting. Can only think some posters tripped over on the way to the keyboard and landed with their head up their own ****.

krok

Mrs.W wrote: »

The last couple of pages in this thread are text book examples of OP baiting. Can only think some posters tripped over on the way to the keyboard and landed with their head up their own ****.

So you think it is right that in a family court you can allege anything without evidence.
That is what is wrong and why fathers have such a hard time getting contact with their children.
That is why the law should be changed. If a claim is made against a partner then it should be proven,
I have seen so many unjust cases, male & female which in my eyes were a crime.
So dont tell me that this is op baiting.
The x didnt take the op to court for fun,

ValHaller

Mrs.W wrote: »

The last couple of pages in this thread are text book examples of OP baiting. Can only think some posters tripped over on the way to the keyboard and landed with their head up their own ****.

If anyone was baiting the OP and came up with you, you'd be thrown back in the sea. But you can stay.

Sommer43

Mrs.W wrote: »

The last couple of pages in this thread are text book examples of OP baiting. Can only think some posters tripped over on the way to the keyboard and landed with their head up their own ****.

Textbook examples of OP baiting?

As opposed to a father being cited, by many as being an alcoholic, irresponsible parent and it blasted all over the internet that he has to have his hair follicle tested for alcohol intake?

Am sure, he would feel the same about it too.

No person has been baiting the OP, I think it is clear that all people agree that a parent who is under the influence should not be in charge of a child.

There are too many families eroded by slinging mud, who are the casualties in that? The children. Many children have spent years being denied access to their parents only to find out later as adults, they were lies from a bitter parent. Here we have some who willingly admit the glee they feel were a court to order tests on their exes, the very same parent they chose to have a child with. That's a generic statement, not directed at the OP.

I am a child of two parents and back in 1978 I was the child who stood in the dock, and told a court room that my mother was not able to take care of me. That was after having my shoes and socks taken off, to check my feet. This destroyed my mother, for many years afterwards, wrapped up in a system that she didn't understand. As a parent myself who has been through the Family Law courts, and removed my children and handed over my children to their father, where I knew they were better off, allowing Family Law to decided on my rehabilitation was never going to happen. I did that with the help of a very kind police officer. If that makes me have my "head up" my rear end, then so be it.

The OP is right to protect her child, that's a natural born instinct in a mother, just like I protected mine from me. But, she doesn't know what her ex will come back with in February and as he was the one who initiated court proceedings, then she should be prepared.

Mrs.W_2

The sound of people grinding their own axes can be deafening sometimes.

I wish the OP's child nothing more than a safe and secure enviroment in which to, hopefully, continue and further the relationship with their father.

clearingout

krok wrote: »

Why else would he do it.

There are an awful lot of reasons someone may decide to involve the family courts in dealing with the care of children post-separation. Not all of those reasons are about actually needing to have contact defined because of contact. Control of an ex is one such reason. You ignore the fact, somewhat conveniently, that there are plenty of people out there with a piece of paper that cost them £thousands to get and which they do not adhere to and never had any intention of doing so.

Indeed, my ex spent thousands getting a contact order secured for children who were in his care, no questions asked, 3 days a week, every week. Since he got his Order (amusingly for less time than we had previously agreed between us because he insisted that I was violent and abusive to our children - never had been when we were together, not sure why I would be when we were apart - CAFCASS got involved and acknowledged the game playing for what it was and did some damage limitation regarding frequent handovers so the children didn't have to keep witnessing their mother abused by their father on her own doorstep) he walked away, never to be heard of for a 15 month period at which point he walked back in like nothing had happened. He sees the children every week now - but still does not want the time allocated in his Order. Never mentions his Order, in fact.

I appreciate that there are NRPs who struggle to see their children but court action on behalf of an NRP should never be assumed to have automatically arisen as a result of contact problems.

krok

clearingout wrote: »

There are an awful lot of reasons someone may decide to involve the family courts in dealing with the care of children post-separation. Not all of those reasons are about actually needing to have contact defined because of contact. Control of an ex is one such reason. You ignore the fact, somewhat conveniently, that there are plenty of people out there with a piece of paper that cost them £thousands to get and which they do not adhere to and never had any intention of doing so.

Indeed, my ex spent thousands getting a contact order secured for children who were in his care, no questions asked, 3 days a week, every week. Since he got his Order (amusingly for less time than we had previously agreed between us because he insisted that I was violent and abusive to our children - never had been when we were together, not sure why I would be when we were apart - CAFCASS got involved and acknowledged the game playing for what it was and did some damage limitation regarding frequent handovers so the children didn't have to keep witnessing their mother abused by their father on her own doorstep) he walked away, never to be heard of for a 15 month period at which point he walked back in like nothing had happened. He sees the children every week now - but still does not want the time allocated in his Order. Never mentions his Order, in fact.

I appreciate that there are NRPs who struggle to see their children but court action on behalf of an NRP should never be assumed to have automatically arisen as a result of contact problems.

Understand what you are saying but if you look at all the threads the op has started you will see she contradicts herself.
She has seven threads just on this subject . If you look at them you will understand why i dont believe her .

Nothing more to say on this matter as the op is clearly deluded.

shoe*diva79

Crikey. A run down of the last 5 months for those thinking I am 'deluded'

We seperated beginning of August 2012. Agreed alternate weekend visits with a wednesday evening visit. Ex never turned up for wednesday visits and on several occasions I did not think it safe for him to have DD overnight.

He has always had open access, to be able to see her anytime. He is welcome to my home, or have DD at his home providing he wasnt drinking. Several occasions I have had to remove staying over contact. He has still seen her during the day on weekends.

He instigated the CO on the basis of overnight contact being few and far between (so i have found out from his CAFCASS interview). During my interview I was asked why I didnt allow overnight stays so obviously I mentioned the drinking. Before my CAFCASS interview I contacted the CAFCASS officer to find out if I should let him have overnight, the officer said I should do what I felt was best. What I felt was best for our DD was to continue having as much contact as possible but not overnight.

He has agreed not to drink whilst having our DD so interim order for alternate weekend staying contact granted. Fne by me - he was having her during the day times anyway.

Going forward I want him to have her one night a week. It does not HAVE to be a Wednesday (which I already said). My reasons being that at 2 years old, going 2 weeks between visits is to long. I want them to have a positive relationship with as much contact as possible. My other reasons are that I am about to start full time work. My career is no less any important then his and I expect us both to support each other to be able to develop our careers while looking after our DD. Afterall, we both made her and are responsible for her. Why should the bulk of caring for our DD fall to me, mean that I am unable to attend a work networking meeting, stay late to a meeting if I need to?

To whoever it was that said I can claim benefits towards childcare along with CM - thats fine. I will be claiming WTC for childcare, im not asking him to pay! And he is paying quite a bit less CM then the CSA would work out in a private agreement with me. She will have had her tea when he collects her from nursery and other then making sure she has a drink, spending time with her and putting her to bed, the NRP will not incur any costs!

I do believe my ex is a alcoholic. It was a serious issue when we were together and contributed towards the end of the relationship. 5 months down the line since we separated I am able to see very clearly how and why things went wrong and I am not saying his drinking was the only problem, but it WAS a problem and has continued to be.

Im not as someone suggested jealous of him, scorned etc etc. Its hard when a relationship breaks down but as the weeks have gone by I have moved on and have nothing but positive things happening in my life right now.

I hope that our DD can continue having a positive relationship with her father and that he starts to put her before other non important things going on in his life.

Please feel free to ask if you think I have forgotten anything before calling me a liar, deluded or anything else. Didn't realise a parent having their Childs best interests at heart was such a awful crime.

shoe*diva79

Sommer43 wrote: »

Exactly. This is the point many seem to be missing. The judge orders a CAFCASS report at the Directions Hearing, whereby a CAFCASS officer is present and the judge will order a CAFCASS report. The mother has not simply been presented with an order, asked to turn up and CAFCASS are suddenly involved. The first hearing would be a Directions hearing, however, for CAFCASS to place their report and the judge to state the father should have hair follicle testing, this means that this sounds like it is a review hearing. The judge will make an order, which tallies up with the alcohol testing, i.e, in the child's best interests.

Also, on application, there should have been a mediation hearing, which is now compulsory in child contact cases. The father has initiated court proceedings, for his reasons which according to Shoediva is because she stopped contact (although she said something completely different on page 1) So mediation hearing has to be in there somewhere. They have been separated, at the time of posting for four months. Judges would like nothing more than for two parents to rock up with an agreement in place that is beneficial to the child, stamps the order and away both parents go. Maybe with a review in six months to see how contact is going. Then the case is closed.

Actually your wrong. I received papers stating case on 8th Jan. a week later CAFCASS wrote to me telling me a officer would be contacting me and my ex to do a telephone interview. Telephone interview happened on 3rd Jan. his telephone interview was 4th jan.

Before those interviews neither of us had been to court. He had only filed papers and got a court date - 8th jan.

We then turn up at court on 8th Jan and a CAFCASS officer runs through the telephone statements. We then wait to see the judge.

Interim order sorted and a hearing in Feb arranged.