IMPORTANT READ for all couples about to emigrate with their children!!!

[Guest]

The problem Rachel faced though Michaela was she was not allowed to stay in Australia as she was a dependent on her ex-partners visa - she would have happily stayed and wants her child to have a relationship with his dad but as a SAHM of a two year old was not allowed to stay in Australia with him and not allowed to take him back to the UK without her exes permission which he refused - heartbreaking

[Peach]

The problem Rachel faced though Michaela was she was not allowed to stay in Australia as she was a dependent on her ex-partners visa - she would have happily stayed and wants her child to have a relationship with his dad but as a SAHM of a two year old was not allowed to stay in Australia with him and not allowed to take him back to the UK without her exes permission which he refused - heartbreaking

 

The facts remains that Rachel's case would seem unusual. I can think of only one occasion where a father has come to poms in oz, to try and keep his children in the UK or OZ, but dozens of women seeking advice for leave to remove cases so they can lead a new life with a different partner.

[M1cha3la]

The problem Rachel faced though Michaela was she was not allowed to stay in Australia as she was a dependent on her ex-partners visa - she would have happily stayed and wants her child to have a relationship with his dad but as a SAHM of a two year old was not allowed to stay in Australia with him and not allowed to take him back to the UK without her exes permission which he refused - heartbreaking

 

Extremely heartbreaking, and a good example of where the system sucks/does not work. But to me in that situation why should the dependent partner/parent have more right to keep/take the children than the visa holder? As I said I have not read the entire thread and am not commenting at anyone or any case in particular. Its never easy when a relationship breaks down and I imagine it becomes even harder when you are abroad. But even so my somewhat naive view is that a decision made together to live abroad (if children are involved) should be seen out in full even if you are not together.

Edited August 8, 2014 by M1cha3la

[Pumpkin]

Extremely heartbreaking, and a good example of where the system sucks/does not work. But to me in that situation why should the dependent partner/parent have more right to keep/take the children than the visa holder? As I said I have not read the entire thread and am not commenting at anyone or any case in particular. Its never easy when a relationship breaks down and I imagine it becomes even harder when you are abroad. But even so my somewhat naive view is that a decision made together to live abroad (if children are involved) should be seen out in full even if you are not together.

 

Well I think in this particular case, they had only agreed to try it out, many people make an agreement just to try it out.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Pumpkin

[MovingtoTasmania]

Extremely heartbreaking, and a good example of where the system sucks/does not work. But to me in that situation why should the dependent partner/parent have more right to keep/take the children than the visa holder? As I said I have not read the entire thread and am not commenting at anyone or any case in particular. Its never easy when a relationship breaks down and I imagine it becomes even harder when you are abroad. But even so my somewhat naive view is that a decision made together to live abroad (if children are involved) should be seen out in full even if you are not together.

@M1cha3la

 

Rachel wasn't allowed to work because of visa conditions, she had no money, no support, she wasn't entitled to benefits (again because of the visa that they were on), she and her son were effectively homeless and penniless and whilst her ex told her that he would be the main carer and put the son in nursery all day and his new g/f had 3 children so one more wasn't that much bother and Rachel could then return to the UK but without her son. I think if she could have gotten a visa or had some way of supporting herself she would have stayed but she was literally on the streets with a 2 y.o. child.

[M1cha3la]

@M1cha3la

 

 

Rachel wasn't allowed to work because of visa conditions, she had no money, no support, she wasn't entitled to benefits (again because of the visa that they were on), she and her son were effectively homeless and penniless and whilst her ex told her that he would be the main carer and put the son in nursery all day and his new g/f had 3 children so one more wasn't that much bother and Rachel could then return to the UK but without her son. I think if she could have gotten a visa or had some way of supporting herself she would have stayed but she was literally on the streets with a 2 y.o. child.

 

 

Well I think in this particular case, they had only agreed to try it out, many people make an agreement just to try it out.

 

 

 

 

As with anything in life, we can only try it out.

 

 

My post was not aimed at Rachel's situation, I did not think the thread was about Rachel, I thought she had her own thread surrounding her specific situation. So apologies I will remove my posts as it was not aimed at her and in her case I believe she has done the best she can and what any of us would do without doubt.

Edited August 8, 2014 by M1cha3la

[Pumpkin]

As with anything in life, we can only try it out.

 

 

My post was not aimed at Rachel's situation, I did not think the thread was about Rachel, I thought she had her own thread surrounding her specific situation. So apologies I will remove my posts as it was not aimed at her and in her case I believe she has done the best she can and what any of us would do without doubt.

 

Yes probably digressing. Although I think all the conversation shows what a minefield this area can be and how it pays to think through possibilities very carefully, which was the OPs original intention.

[MovingtoTasmania]

As with anything in life, we can only try it out.

 

 

My post was not aimed at Rachel's situation, I did not think the thread was about Rachel, I thought she had her own thread surrounding her specific situation. So apologies I will remove my posts as it was not aimed at her and in her case I believe she has done the best she can and what any of us would do without doubt.

 

No don't remove your posts @M1cha3la, perhaps I misunderstood as I thought it was about Rachel's situation and I just wanted to clarify that hers was a very difficult situation and extreme xxx

[M1cha3la]

No don't remove your posts @M1cha3la, perhaps I misunderstood as I thought it was about Rachel's situation and I just wanted to clarify that hers was a very difficult situation and extreme xxx

 

Noo, no miss-understanding as Pumpkin said its a minefield of a subject and one I normally keep my nose out of.. Rachel's situation must of been the stuff of nightmares and I can not imagine what she went through. Not knocking her in the slightest, which is why I would remove my posts incase it came across that way. :hug:

[Parley]

The problem Rachel faced though Michaela was she was not allowed to stay in Australia as she was a dependent on her ex-partners visa - she would have happily stayed and wants her child to have a relationship with his dad but as a SAHM of a two year old was not allowed to stay in Australia with him and not allowed to take him back to the UK without her exes permission which he refused - heartbreaking

 

I don't believe this actually.

There is no way she would be forced to leave in this scenario.

[Tina2]

Can't agree with that. Men usually come off very badly in these situations..

Not true, to be very honest it come down to the judge your case is allocated. There are judges who are known to be very involved in the mens rights movement which is growing at an incredible rate in Aus. Once you get a judge you are stuck with that judge no way of changing so every time you go back to court you get the same judge. There is one judge who for ovious reasons i cant name who has been photographed at mens rights dinners, and has several lawyers demanding he is removed from the bench but have had no success. The days of the mother winning are well and truly over. Sure there will be judges who lean towards the mother but they are becoming few and far between. The only way to make these cases fair would be a panel of say two or three judges and two or three social workers and ALL evidence heard, you would be amazed at the evidence that is not allowed to protect one of the parents. The sadest thing is the damage it is doing to the children. For one moment imagine your life of having to live in a different home each week. One week with mum and one week with dad, totally different disapline, different bed and meal routine, different styles of clothes, and so it goes on.Unless involved in this night mare you have no idea of just how some of these poor kids are used as a weapon in the battle, and the heart ache it causes when you know you cant do a thing about it, due to the cost of trying to find a decent and fair lawyer, $200,000 minimum cost and increasing.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Tina2

[Parley]

Many families do the one week on one week off very successfully.

You should realise the old default position of kids belong to mum is not the best model at all, and this is why the Family Court has moved into the 21st century.

[Pumpkin]

Not true, to be very honest it come down to the judge your case is allocated. There are judges who are known to be very involved in the mens rights movement which is growing at an incredible rate in Aus. Once you get a judge you are stuck with that judge no way of changing so every time you go back to court you get the same judge. There is one judge who for ovious reasons i cant name who has been photographed at mens rights dinners, and has several lawyers demanding he is removed from the bench but have had no success. The days of the mother winning are well and truly over. Sure there will be judges who lean towards the mother but they are becoming few and far between. The only way to make these cases fair would be a panel of say two or three judges and two or three social workers and ALL evidence heard, you would be amazed at the evidence that is not allowed to protect one of the parents. The sadest thing is the damage it is doing to the children. For one moment imagine your life of having to live in a different home each week. One week with mum and one week with dad, totally different disapline, different bed and meal routine, different styles of clothes, and so it goes on.Unless involved in this night mare you have no idea of just how some of these poor kids are just as a weapon in the battle, and the heart ache it causes when you know you cant do a thing about it, due to the cost of trying to find a decent and fair lawyer, $200,000 minimum cost and increasing.

 

In Australia, as far as I can tell, the courts very much seem to favour the parent in Australia or wanting to remain in Australia, be it the mother or father. But my comments, as I confirmed a couple of times in later posts, were about my observations of UK courts and British mothers looking to remove their children from the UK because they fancy a new life in Australia with a new chap. In this case, my observation (and I have read the same story many times over the last five years) is that the mother usually wins, even if there is a committed father on the scene. Perhaps a slightly different situation than the one you refer to.

[ali]

As with anything in life, we can only try it out.

 

 

My post was not aimed at Rachel's situation, I did not think the thread was about Rachel, I thought she had her own thread surrounding her specific situation. So apologies I will remove my posts as it was not aimed at her and in her case I believe she has done the best she can and what any of us would do without doubt.

 

No need to remove your posts - as you say this isn't a post about a members specific situation (for which she started a thread), but as a general discussion started by a different OP.

[Tina2]

Many families do the one week on one week off very successfully.

You should realise the old default position of kids belong to mum is not the best model at all, and this is why the Family Court has moved into the 21st century.

 

Successfull for whom ? The kids or the parents ? Kids who have been forced into this situation are now starting to speak out about the hell the 50/50 put them through.

To make it work even to a small degree it requires both parents to be able to sit down and calmly discuss routines, disapline, etc, so there is little change between one home and the other home. Sadly this is rare, and in many cases it makes the situation far worse for everyone concerned especially where one partner brings in a replacement wife or husband who tries to take over as a parent.

[Parley]

All parties.

Obviously you are trying to push the case for the mother to have sole custody but the Family Court recognises that is not in the child's best interests in the vast majority of cases.

[Tina2]

All parties.

Obviously you are trying to push the case for the mother to have sole custody but the Family Court recognises that is not in the child's best interests in the vast majority of cases.

Not true what I want to see is where BOTH parents are "required" to communicate and be fair and reasonable and ALWAYS put what is in the kids best interest first. It should not be a case where the parent with the most money to hire the very best legal team goes up against a parent with no, or very little legal representation and gets bullied into agreeing to orders that favour one parent over the other and where the childrens opinion is totally disregarded. I am not favouring the mother but it has become very evident over the last few years there has been a major shift in the family courts. I totally agree in the 1990s it was very much in favour of the mother, but now it has turned full circle to favour the father. If the father is not a drunk, or drug addict, has a house to live in and a job of some form it is highly likely he will now get what he wants in the way of access. As I said I dont think "one" judge should make the decision, it should be a panel so results are fair to all parties involved but especially fair to the children. The other concern is the role of the "court reporter" someone who is a family councillor, who meets for around an hour with each party and if old enough the children as well. Based on that one meeting they prepare a report for the court and that report holds a lot of weight in the court. Any one can be on there best behavoir for one day, or can have read up on what they should or should not say. The whole system needs a revamp where safety nets are put in place to moniter what happens after orders are set. Are the orders doing what they were intended to do ? make life better for the kids ? If not then changes should be made. This at least would stop the attitude - I won now I can do what ever I like.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Tina2

[Parley]

If the father is not a drunk, or drug addict, has a house to live in and a job of some form it is highly likely he will now get what he wants in the way of access.

 

Which is exactly appropriate.

There is no reason why he shouldn't get substantial access. That is what is in the child's best interests which is the main consideration of the court.

 

[Tina2]

If the father is not a drunk, or drug addict, has a house to live in and a job of some form it is highly likely he will now get what he wants in the way of access.

 

Which is exactly appropriate.

There is no reason why he shouldn't get substantial access. That is what is in the child's best interests which is the main consideration of the court.

 

So you dont think his "lifestyle" or how he believes a child should be raised is of any importance

[Parley]

I don't know what you mean exactly by lifestyle, but the court's primary consideration is the welfare of the child.

I'm sure there will always be differences in parenting style, but as long as the child is safe from harm the court will always consider the benefits of a substantial relationship with both parents as the best outcome for the child.

[Tina2]

I don't know what you mean exactly by lifestyle, but the court's primary consideration is the welfare of the child.

I'm sure there will always be differences in parenting style, but as long as the child is safe from harm the court will always consider the benefits of a substantial relationship with both parents as the best outcome for the child.

That is what I am trying to get it, the court does not look at lifestyle and how it may harm a child. Multipul, new partners that move in and the kids are then told this is you "new" mummy/daddy, and then comes the new aunt/uncle/grandparent, after 3-6 months that one goes and a new one arrives. This leave the kids scared and confused. What about changing diet almost over night when the japanese friend moves in ? Making Mid Primary kids have a sleep in the afternoon on weekends so dad and "friend" can have a "rest" and then keeping them up till after 10 to play video games with the parent ? just to name a few. Yes all these are not looked at and if raised are said to be "irrelivent.

Still it is clear you are fixed in you opinion so no point saying to much more as it is off topic really.

[Parley]

Those things could just as easily happen on the mother's side too.

[Quoll]

I don't know what you mean exactly by lifestyle, but the court's primary consideration is the welfare of the child.

I'm sure there will always be differences in parenting style, but as long as the child is safe from harm the court will always consider the benefits of a substantial relationship with both parents as the best outcome for the child.

 

It's a hugely vexed question and in theory works ok but in practice there are many kids for whom it renders a childhood of utter confusion unfortunately. Many of them don't know if they are Arthur or Martha and it has implications for school and social activities. I've dealt with quite a few over the years, where the parents thought they were doing the nice civilized sharing thing down to the nth minute but the kids were anxious, confused, unsettled and generally unhappy. They didn't know what was happening, couldn't predict things and were often embarrassed. Of course there were some kids who coped really well but it is naive to assume that every child will cope in the same way.

 

When talking to parents about their rationale for doing the week and week about thing it was interesting to hear their different reasons - mum's was usually the "I want them to have a good relationship with their dad" and dad's reason was usually "I'm not going to give her anything if I don't have to". Colour me cynical by all means but when you do it for long enough nothing surprises you any more! I can still remember the poor little kid who had day and day about with his uber PC, totally equal parents (worked for them) sobbing his heart out because he really had no idea where he was (literally and metaphorically). Ironically, the underlying parental reasoning for their decision was that he interfered less with their social lives that way although of course on the surface it was "we believe in shared parenting"

 

I dont think there is a one size fits all and when a relationship breaks down there are all sorts of stories told and grudges harboured so divining the truth really takes the judgment of a Solomon and unfortunately the Family Court often gets it WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! But it can only take on face value the information given to it and sometimes that comes best packaged in very expensive legal briefs which may appear valid but not be in the least bit so. My heart goes out to any family being torn apart I must say, but using the kids as pawns in the resultant aftermath is unconscionable.

[Tina2]

Those things could just as easily happen on the mother's side too.

Absoluetly 100% agree, that is what I am trying to say, far more needs to be looked at than is the current situation and if a "review" system was brought in to look at any issues on a 12 monthly basis it would encourage people to be reasonable and not think well I won now I can do what every I like . There are of course the relationships centers but they hold no legal weight. A panel of independent councillors and mediators needs to be formed that have the weight to look at "hard evidence" and if nessssary change access. In the UK 10 is now being looked at as the age a child can say what they want and I think that is a brilliant idea, no one knows more than the child what happens in both houses and where they feel happpier. Just to reintersate, I strongly believe a child should have a meaning full relationship with both parents.

[Gbye grey sky]

That is what I am trying to get it, the court does not look at lifestyle and how it may harm a child. Multipul, new partners that move in and the kids are then told this is you "new" mummy/daddy, and then comes the new aunt/uncle/grandparent, after 3-6 months that one goes and a new one arrives. This leave the kids scared and confused. What about changing diet almost over night when the japanese friend moves in ? Making Mid Primary kids have a sleep in the afternoon on weekends so dad and "friend" can have a "rest" and then keeping them up till after 10 to play video games with the parent ? just to name a few. Yes all these are not looked at and if raised are said to be "irrelivent.

Still it is clear you are fixed in you opinion so no point saying to much more as it is off topic really.

 

I think you are being even-handed and that you recognise that the mother or father (or both) could have chaotic lifestyles from time to time but you seem to be implying that the courts act as a surrogate parent monitoring closely the social life of both parents and assessing their new boyfriends/girlfriends for suitability or assessing things like amounts of TV screen time, diet etc but on what basis. There are plenty of children brought up by two parents with chaotic lifestyles so where does the controlling end? A child may not like a new step-parent but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with that person. Surely the courts can only make a decision based on the information available at the time. It is then up to the parents to parent their own children and the courts should only become involved if there is abuse because 'lifestyle' concerns are incredibly subjective.