Fiercely protective mother makes concessions at trial

Fiercely protective mother makes concessions at trial

  1. The history of the litigation would suggest that the mother considers that the father presents as a risk to the children by assertion that he has behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner to the children, that he presents as a physical risk and during the period of the relationship he was the perpetrator of family violence towards both the mother and the children.
  2. The mother did not press that the father presented as an unacceptable risk at trial, but rather focussed on her assessment of the very detailed needs of the children and an assertion that the father was either not prepared or not able to provide for their necessary care.
  3. It appears uncontroversial that there are a number of health professionals that have been engaged to assist the children, but in particular B whose behaviour is more challenging and requiring a greater level of care, management and attention.
  4. The mother contends that whilst she remains fiercely protective of the children, she recognises that it is important for them to maintain a meaningful relationship with the father. She acknowledges that the children have not spent time with him for now more than one year but that is not to be seen as an indication of her resistance but rather, a consequence of a breakdown in communication between the parties.
  5. The father does not accept the mother’s proposition and her explanation for the non-compliance with the current interim order and argues that she has no intention of complying with any order that the children would spend time with him. He considers that the mother is set on fundamentally disrupting his relationship with the children.
  6. The parties seek orders that are the mirror opposite of the other. In particular, each seeks orders that provide for the children to spend time with the non-primary care parent upon such conditions as the Court may deem appropriate. Such an order is of little assistance to the Court. It is not an order that can be made in its literal terms. If taken as read it purports to encourage the Court to make orders within the widest possible discretion and without reference to any proposal of the parties.

Read more here

Queensland / New South Wales / Victoria



Related articles

Your passionate team of family lawyers

Let’s work out your next steps together. Book your free consultation to start the process.