right to see the kids

Alpine

justlooking2012 wrote: »

YOU ARE WRONG, seriously unless you know instead of spouting rubbish then keep it shut as you are giving someone wrong advice about a serious subject. I have been through the courts and I now have residence of my children, so I know what im talking about.
Also its perfectly viable for someone to act for themselves in private family law proceedings.

So your case is not the same as the OPs. You went for residence and he wants contact (from his original post).


A contact order is not the same as asking for residency. If the OP wants to fight for residency of his children, then absolutely, he should see a solicitor and see what his grounds for residency would be, but a contact order is simply a piece of paper that no judge will punish a PWC for breaking.

DUTR

Alpine wrote: »

So your case is not the same as the OPs. You went for residence and he wants contact (from his original post).


A contact order is not the same as asking for residency. If the OP wants to fight for residency of his children, then absolutely, he should see a solicitor and see what his grounds for residency would be, but a contact order is simply a piece of paper that no judge will punish a PWC for breaking.

I don't think anybody disagrees with, when it becomes a court order though, then they will , the charge would not be breaking the order, it would be contempt of court, and nobody gets just a slapped wrist for that :eek:

Alpine

DUTR wrote: »

I don't think anybody disagrees with, when it becomes a court order though, then they will , the charge would not be breaking the order, it would be contempt of court, and nobody gets just a slapped wrist for that :eek:

No, it's not contempt of court, it is failing to comply with a contact order. Try searching for "CB5 applications related to enforcement of contact" and have a read.

justlooking2012

Alpine wrote: »

So your case is not the same as the OPs. You went for residence and he wants contact (from his original post).


A contact order is not the same as asking for residency. If the OP wants to fight for residency of his children, then absolutely, he should see a solicitor and see what his grounds for residency would be, but a contact order is simply a piece of paper that no judge will punish a PWC for breaking.

Once again you are wrong, the cases that you can look up in the link provided shows that judges have fined, ordered unpaid work and also changed residence due to continued breaking of court orders. It is not done under contempt of court though, what happens if a parent with residence breaks to order then the non resident parent applies for commital etc etc basically. If all warnings, fines and unpaid work fails then change of residence can and has been used.
Please do not tell me I am wrong as im simply not

justlooking2012

DUTR wrote: »

That is what my mate done (represented himself) and the courts ruled in his favour, he does not have residence, but was not seeking that.
Also a previous GF the father took residence of the youngest one and in effect she can't do anything about it, but pay csa herself, she did not take the father to court but does miss her son.

If she had taken the father to court to court then its highly likely she would now have residence. Judges normally maintain the status quo, provided there are no welfare issues so if she was the sons main carer then she would have been given interim custody while the proceedings were ongoing

DUTR

justlooking2012 wrote: »

If she had taken the father to court to court then its highly likely she would now have residence. Judges normally maintain the status quo, provided there are no welfare issues so if she was the sons main carer then she would have been given interim custody while the proceedings were ongoing

In the old days perhaps, but in today's modern society of equal opportunity, for whatever reason, after seeing a solicitor, either the cost or other reasons dictated that she would not fight, but cruel as it is, it's nice to see the tables turned for a change.

DUTR

[QUOTE=Alpine;58685247]No, it's not contempt of court, it is failing to comply with a contact order. Try searching for "CB5 applications related to enforcement of contact" and have a read.[/QUOTE]

Disagree, the failing to comply is what creates the contempt of court, it's like if someone does not adhere to bail conditions for example.

Just on the phone to my mate, he says the judge points the consequences if either party break the order.
The OP will get access unless the mother proves it is not in the child(rens) interest, residency is a different case though.

Alpine

justlooking2012 wrote: »

Once again you are wrong, the cases that you can look up in the link provided shows that judges have fined, ordered unpaid work and also changed residence due to continued breaking of court orders. It is not done under contempt of court though, what happens if a parent with residence breaks to order then the non resident parent applies for commital etc etc basically. If all warnings, fines and unpaid work fails then change of residence can and has been used.
Please do not tell me I am wrong as im simply not

You keep describing what they could do, not what they do do. The judges could send a PWC to prison, but do not, hence why the punishments were changed to unpaid work and compensation (neither of which I would consider a punishment).


You will need to provide the proof from those pages for a case where residency was changed just because a contact order was breached. I couldn't see any for the past 2 years.

DUTR

Alpine wrote: »

You keep describing what they could do, not what they do do. The judges could send a PWC to prison, but do not, hence why the punishments were changed to unpaid work and compensation (neither of which I would consider a punishment).


You will need to provide the proof from those pages for a case where residency was changed just because a contact order was breached. I couldn't see any for the past 2 years.

I know someone that had to do unpaid work, 2 days a week for umpteen weeks, if you are already working then it does have a strong impact as he was SE, even if you were an employee, it would have to be an understanding employer to allow the time off, as one can be dismissed if they make themselves unavailable for work.

justlooking2012

Alpine wrote: »

You keep describing what they could do, not what they do do. The judges could send a PWC to prison, but do not, hence why the punishments were changed to unpaid work and compensation (neither of which I would consider a punishment).


You will need to provide the proof from those pages for a case where residency was changed just because a contact order was breached. I couldn't see any for the past 2 years.

Mate your an idiot and I will not bother replying to you again. The cases that I have provided a link for are real cases that have happened not the sort of cases that you dream happen and watch on hollyoaks or something. I do not mind debating with people but what I have said HAS happened