Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Follow up Lane & Arthurs - Residence Reversed

The mother continued to interfere with the children's relationship with their Father. The children now live with the father.

A follow up to the Lane & Arthurs case. The mother continued to interfere with the children's relationship with their Father. The children now live with the father.

Attachment
Lane & Arthurs [2006] FamCA 243 (11 April 2006)

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!

Jail for Contravention

According to an article in the Daily Telegraph, Federal Magistrate Jarret yesterday jailed a mother for contravention. Apparently their have been many visits to court. At the last hearing, the mother was given the choice let the children see Dad, or go to Jail. Mum chose Jail. Apparently there was a suspended sentence in place already. Oh, and the Kids are now living with Dad.

Of course the point remains that the children are not and will never be removed from a parent as punishment. Therefore the punishment was jail, and therefore Dad will have to care for the children.

Mum jailed in custody battle

Exclusive by Janet Fife-Yeomans

March 29, 2007 12:00

Article from: The Daily Telegraph

Font size: + -

Send this article: Print Email

A MOTHER-of-two is behind bars for defying court orders in a tug-of-love fight with her ex-partner. In what family law experts said was a rare case, the woman, 31, was given a heartbreaking choice by the Federal Magistrates' Court - let the father to see his children or go to jail. Have you experienced a similar situation? Tell us via the feedback form below. We may not be able to publish some comments for legal reasons but we will read them all. Magistrate Michael Jarrett adjourned the case for 15 minutes but when he returned to the bench, the woman, already on a good behaviour bond for refusing access to her ex-partner, remained unrepentant. Mr Jarrett, sitting at Lismore in northern NSW, took the rare step of jailing her for four months. She was last night in Grafton Jail and her children, a girl aged six and a boy aged eight, were with their father, 41, who was granted full custody. Her new husband yesterday told The Daily Telegraph yesterday his wife was distraught. "She has been crying," he said. The families cannot be identified. The father's solicitor, Steven Tester, said the magistrate had no choice after the mother refused a lifeline. "No one wanted to see the mother go to jail. The point of these kinds of cases is that there are laws in place and they apply to everyone, Compliance is not optional," Mr Tester said. "The Family Court heard evidence and allowed the father to have unsupervised access to his children. "Despite the mother being warned about the likely result of her not complying with the order, she took matters into her own hands. "The result is regrettable but ultimately it was the mother's choice." Family law expert Michael Taussig QC said it was an extreme case. "They are highly emotional cases and it has to be a blatant and flagrant breach of court orders before a magistrate will consider jail," Mr Taussig said. It was the culmination of six years and 22 Family Court and Federal Magistrates' Court hearings since the couple split when the woman was a few weeks pregnant with their second child. Her claim that her children would be in danger from their father, who has a number of criminal convictions, was rejected by the Family Court. In December she was placed on a good behaviour bond by the Federal Magistrates' Court after she refused to allow supervised visits by the father and hid with the children for six months. Her new husband said she intended to appeal and was preparing the case herself after being refused Legal Aid.


I will get one of the site executives to post up this as a news item. What an interesting story. Thanks for the great post.  :thumbs:

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
as a dad who is fighthing for my children's and my rights, the ending of this story sux big time! the children are now with out the mother, because the she did do what was in the best interest of the children.
How stupid can some people be not to do what is in the best interest of the children.
At the end of my battle, all that I want is what is best for my children, and that is to have contact with both parents, and both families.
I trully feel sorry for the children in this case.

When I needed :( help Dads In Distress was there for me:thumbs:.

Now I am there as a facilitator for other Dads In Distress.

A very common attitude

Ajac's attitude is very common amoung the Fathers I share with. I would go so far as to say that for the entire duration of my adult life. I have met very few fathers who did not put their children's needs above their own level of agrevation or distress.

One of the most common themes I come across is the frustration felt by fathers when they realise that amicable arrangments for the care and welfare of their children are probably impossible. I know quite a few fathers who have walked away from the conflict (and their children) because they genuinely believed that the only way to minimise the damage to the children was if they, the Father withdrew.

Even the Fathers who decide to pursue court action when left with no choice, are usually looking for a way to protect their children from the distress. The fathers might be upset at the loss of their relationship, but put the children back in their lives and a little sanity, and the Fathers recover quickly.

Another common theme is the apparent focus on money issues. In every case I know of, money was not the real issue, beyond having enough to pay their weekly bill and maintain some self respect. The underlying and much greater stressor is the children's issues. For some it is too painfull to discuss, so they talk about the money issues. Too often I hear of Fathers being manipulated, "You are only want time with the child for the money you will save", the father then signs over house without argument or contribues cash. And still doesn't get to see the children or included in decisions about the children's future & welfare.

No we don't want to the mother in jail, but on the other hand, it is high time the consequences of stubborn and selfish behaviour by one parent was directed at that parent instead of the children and the other parent.

ajac said
…. the ending of this story sux big time! the children are now with out the mother, because the she did do what was in the best interest of the children. How stupid can some people be not to do what is in the best interest of the children. At the end of my battle, all that I want is what is best for my children, and that is to have contact with both parents, and both families.
I truly feel sorry for the children in this case.
Unfortunately you can only lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink…The old adage rings true here. The SPCA was one of the key proponents in getting passed major changes to the Family Law Act last year. These changes are to ensure that wayward and delinquent parents, who do not facilitate or are not prepared to work toward ensuring that children can enjoy a close and proper relationship with both parents, are penalised. These parents will now need to account for their actions and take responsibility for the insidious behaviour they exhibit .

All too often many non resident parents (now spends time with parents) were forced into outrageous regimes of limited contact or no contact at all in many cases. Forced into a one night a fortnight contact regime if they were lucky… Forced to pay Child Support for a relationship they never had or knew much about and discarded as the once loving and caring other parent all because the other parent could… Well to bad I say. It's a new world now and either participate under the new rules or change the lives with parent.

Importantly, in cases where family violence or child abuse are not issues, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, now becomes the most significant factor that the court must take into account when determining "best interests" and this leads to the making of orders through the "Rebutable Presumption (61DA (New) of shared parental responsibility".

It then follows on to section 65DAA (New) ordering that the court MUST consider the child spending equal or substantially equal time etc.

I also draw your attention to 60b Meaningful involvement, all new sections.

-   Willingness for each parent to facilitate and encourage a close relationship with children ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives. Where a 2 tiered best interests (60B) provision appears to move substantial relationship with both parents and violence to a higher level of importance than other provisions giving more importance to these two aspects.

AND

60CC Attitude of Parents
-   Again it is reinforced that a willingness for each parent to facilitate and encourage a close relationship with children for the other parent is now a major item in determining factors.
-   The Court must consider the attitude of the parents where they have taken or failed to take, the opportunity to spend time with the child etc and facilitate the other parent doing these things.
-   Primary sections defined "the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents"

Parents MUST do these things.

Never again will we face a situation in our society during and after separation where parents could discard the other like flotsam and cease all parent child relationship just because they had the children.

I have little sympathy for the mother. She was warned, she had her chance to facilitate such contact as required, in fact had many chances.

I know how the system works having been in countless courtrooms and seen the Judiciary and Registrars at work. They would absolutely have given this women every single conceivable possible opportunity to make things right. She refused, She pays the price.

I would expect a Dad would get the same treatment by that judge if he conducted such a regime. Our interest is the children, who now have an absolute and guaranteed right in law to have an equal or substantially equal relationship (Subject to conditions) with both parents.

Talk to DIDS (Dads in Distress) to see what their views are.
One suicide through lack of contact is one to many in our view and we have now changed the law thanks to the efforts of a few on behalf of so many… Perhaps our kids when they are older will look back at this time as being the crossroads, a time when things radically changed  for the better… I make no apologies for being part of the Council that has started to fix this despicable regime and I am only sorry that a young Australian "Jim" took his life in Christchurch a few months back as the mother of his children would not allow him to continue his warm and loving relationship with his kids.
.  :(

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 

Am I missing the point of the jailing ?

As far as I can tell the mother was jailed for "Contempt of Court".
She had been ordered to do certain things by the court AND refused - repeatedly.

The result could AND should have been the same if she had been ordered to send the children to school in shoes instead of barefooted AND she had repeatedly refused to comply with the Court's legal orders. The Court could NOT physically force the mother to put the shoes on - all it can do is to invoke the Contempt provisions. In this case the Court found that the contempt was serious enough to warrant a jail sentence.

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL:- the problem is this - THE FAMILY COURT has no powers of enforcement !
EG - try collecting your personal property after a judgment IF the ex-wife has your house and won't let you in.

The Court is NOT interested in proper enforcement of all orders. See also ex-chief Justice Nicholson's public comments about NOT enforcing orders against women (or was it only mothers). Maybe this whole episode is symptomatic of a lot of current society being very un-disciplined (or non-disciplined) and only bothering with the rules and regulations when they know that they are being watched.

My personal HOPE is that ALL the Family Court Judiciary start taking their roles seriously and hand down orders that are BOTH sensible AND enforceable.  The alternative solution, of having a FC division of the Federal Police monitoring or controlling all visitation exchanges should not be necessary.
 

Honorary Treasurer, Family Law reform Association of NSW Inc.
John GEREMIN, 02-9758 5686, mob 0427 10 20 60.

Primary contact - Coral SLATTERY, secretary, 02- 9542 2459, mob 0402 021 438.

Can you help the Computer Museum find some storage space near Sydney.

 
FLRA-Treasurer said
As far as I can tell the mother was jailed for "Contempt of Court".
She had been ordered to do certain things by the court AND refused - repeatedly.

The result could AND should have been the same if she had been ordered to send the children to school in shoes instead of barefooted AND she had repeatedly refused to comply with the Court's legal orders. The Court could NOT physically force the mother to put the shoes on - all it can do is to invoke the Contempt provisions. In this case the Court found that the contempt was serious enough to warrant a jail sentence.

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL:- the problem is this - THE FAMILY COURT has no powers of enforcement !
EG - try collecting your personal property after a judgment IF the ex-wife has your house and won't let you in.

The Court is NOT interested in proper enforcement of all orders. See also ex-chief Justice Nicholson's public comments about NOT enforcing orders against women (or was it only mothers). Maybe this whole episode is symptomatic of a lot of current society being very un-disciplined (or non-disciplined) and only bothering with the rules and regulations when they know that they are being watched.

My personal HOPE is that ALL the Family Court Judiciary start taking their roles seriously and hand down orders that are BOTH sensible AND enforceable.  The alternative solution, of having a FC division of the Federal Police monitoring or controlling all visitation exchanges should not be necessary.
 
No you are not missing the point of the jailing - the Mother was in contempt - period - she refused to follow a directive of the court

Collection of property normally involves an order of the Court regarding a specific day and time. The easiest thing is to go back - ask for another one and this time arrive with the local police - tell them that perhaps there could be trouble or an accusation that will lead to an AVO. This is generally successful. Second failure - then you have a "COPS" entry - a very different matter if you have to go back to Court a third time. The state Police do not enforce Federal orders - but they do try to prevent an 'occurance' that comes under their jurisdiction

Please forget Nicolson - he said so much rubbish that it could fill volumes. He is gone - period and whilst he occasionally might pop up and regurgitate some nonsense - he is no longer CE. Howard and Ruddock did not like Nicolson and it appears only courtesy that he is not referred to as the Pol Pot of the Family Court…

Last edit: by OneRingRules


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets