Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Primary Attachment Theory

How is this used in court? What do we understand about childrens' counsellors and what purpose do the children's counsellors provide in the court process

No offense Agog but my view point comes from my experiences and those I have spoken to.

They are not those of Tony Miller or DID's but I admit I have been participating in the DID's forum from the time I discovered the forum early in my separation and before this forum was available.

Still if you would like to open dialog on what is amiss with my opinion I'll be happy to discuss how I arrived at that opinion.

   

  
No offence taken. It is that sometimes people are highly selective at the information they present at DIDS and other meetings.

Many people have had very bad outcomes and others cannot face the reality they might have contributed to that outcome.

Unfortunately my opinion comes from far too many years being involved in Family Law.
 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
In all honesty I've never been to a DID's meeting or had dialog with DID's moderators with the exception of one who I value and respect.

I can understand that many walk into court fighting with the only tool available to them ( their anger ) and do not understand why they accomplish nothing. And yes there are many who refuse to accept they need to approach in a different manner.

I still feel education and support groups are the only way of balancing the system.

And those who simply do not know where to find help do things R ss about damaging many of their options.

Plenty of good women out there just not my X  ;)

Court

There can be many reasons why people end up in court, many and I suspect many times it has more to do with solicitors and money, we must not forget that if the system could filter out that element then it would be far less adversarial, as it needs to be but is that ever likely to happen.

"3 sides to every story" ! I take personal offence to that blind statement, I understand that it may apply to some but to offer it as a "wise" and honest then it is quite out of order.

Nothing in this "industry" can be generalised, nor should be.
Aussie, I hear that saying often. I consider it feasible that one of the sides, other than the truth, can be the same as the truth. I'm not going to rack my brain with considering if all three sides could be the same though but perhaps they could be.
There are infinite sides to every story depending on how many people it involves.

Each time a new character becomes involved it increases the possibility's exponentially to increase to incorporate the whole.

So three sides when one person talks to one, then if both parties talk to one person each there will 8 sides. On and on.

When one side has a lawyer their perception of how to use their clients information to better their clients position adds to the story like multiplication works in mathematics.  

Human nature has us regard ourself as the one truth some pose that the three sides " your side my side and the truth " is a way of accepting you have lied or you perception of the truth has been conceived through human bias.

But as you have said Mr T if you are telling the truth that means there are only 2 sides or they both perceive their version as the truth because they are each telling the truth about differing things then we end with a simple " your side my side and a truthful expansion of the story "  :'(

So then it boils down to how convincingly you can tell your truth and if you don't lie no one needs convincing.

Three sides

Just goes to show how the saying  "there are 3 sides to every story, there is her side, there is his side and then there is the truth" could be nothing further from the truth.

When you think about it you realise just how ridiculous and shallow it is.



The defense of Mr.Agog

Gentlemen - and ladies.

Mr. Agog's line that there is 3 sides to a story is sadly spot on; this does not imply that people lie, but more of an indication, that the issues around family law are very complex and events or action are interpreted differently by both sides. A neutral party, in this case your helper, sees things from an emotionally detached point of view - this is the truth, as he sees it.

If you think about it logically, for there to be a dispute, there has to be disagreement/misunderstanding or different interpretations over events. Neither side can be said to be NOT telling the truth - but the full truth is normally a combination of both sides.

This comes from a police college: First witness:The car was not white, dirty white but not black. Second witness: The car was not black, more of lighter colour but not white. Police puts the colour down in his note book as grey. Three sides!, all telling the truth.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Thank you for the defence Monteverdi although I do not need it. If people cannot understand the context and think it ridiculous and shallow then it explains why there are so many disputes. Like you pointed out there are many variations of truth from the different perspectives.

The other problem is that of 'selectivity' where information is deliberately presented in a way to create a 'false' picture

Regarding the latter we have seen this at a recent FLRA meeting where an individual presented information that incited some listeners - until they heard the whole story
 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Aussie said
There can be many reasons why people end up in court, many and I suspect many times it has more to do with solicitors and money, we must not forget that if the system could filter out that element then it would be far less adversarial, as it needs to be but is that ever likely to happen.

"3 sides to every story" ! I take personal offence to that blind statement, I understand that it may apply to some but to offer it as a "wise" and honest then it is quite out of order.

Nothing in this "industry" can be generalised, nor should be.
Far from a generalisation it is how the Courts work. There is his side, her side and in the middle the truth. Few cases are where one partner is 100% right and the other 100% wrong.

It might be very true that many solicitors up the ante but to visit one implies there is already a dispute in progress.  There also other external influences which drive disputes onwards be they other Family members or organisations with political agendas. Solicitors can just capitalise on these.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
D4E you are missing the point.

There are no 8 sides or add infinitum sides to the story.

The DID's concept is also the Court's concept.

Other people just add third party versions to the complexity depending on their interpretation and the version they have been given.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
My point is being missed.

My attempt at humour are not always well versed.

My point being is if you restrict yourself to three side you will be doing yourself an injustice, we need to start to think outside the box and expand to look at a far bigger picture that incorporates as many ideals as possible with the core being our beliefs as to what is beat for our children then compensate for the " three sides to every story "

As I have stated previously I do not follow any specific " group " belief, such as DIDs.

My opinions are based on my ideals and the logic I follow but I respect that others have an opinion and understand their entitlement to it.

I do not believe the court system searches for the truth I believe they search for what they would consider the best judgment for the situation often this has little to do with the truth and more to do with who is the better spin doctor. They compromise the truth for result.

This is not to say their decisions are write or wrong but simply decisions made. If a case presented lacks what they are looking for to make a judgment favorable to the argument of one person I have heard some judges will hint as to what is required in an attempt to introduce the truth they know exists, this in itself diminishes the idea the judge works on truth but rather works on production of information.

As people themselves have an ability to brain wash their own mind to the point they take on a "new reality of events" this surely shows another introduction to a new perception of truth. They truly believe these events happen and they base their lives around them.

In the end it does not matter 3 is a simplified version that anyone can follow and allows focus on possibility that you have not thought about the fact that your perception of events is not what other might see, and I do not have a problem with this as a tool it is a similar tool as "playing the devils advocate".
 
All here bring up good points and arguments and all should be respected and considered. Some may see the sense of expanding their thinking beyond a three point situation and look again at concept and think "what would a lawyer working for my X do?"

This allows pre-empting and preparation which I think is a valuable thing if you are to self represent.

I don't look to change opinions for they are valuable to their owner I simply want to share my thoughts that have developed through the last four years.

No-justice I enjoyed reading your submission as I did yours monteverdi, you may also be aware that police use Chinese whispers to show the value of writing down information before the evidence is diluted, they also use time to show even when something is observed the mind over times changes it's truth. They are asked to observe an incident then a short lecture is held after this they are ask questions about the incident prior. Most remember incorrectly.
Actually I am beginning to see two distinct sides being presented by different experience points.

On one hand the people that are active in Dids or in the Courts and on the other side are those with less first hand experience.

Sorry people I go for the first group as they would have the better street creds.
Sorry guest can you expand on what you've posted, just so I can get a bit of a better handle on it, not only am I a bit of a blond but it's falling out as well so I'm double disadvantaged  :thumbs:
Consider if the purpose of the expert witness is simply to allow the person on the bench to have another person to whom responsibility for their decision might be otherwise directed. Somewhat a spreading of responsibility.

When parties are interviewed for 40 minutes and the perceptions of the expert witness is relied upon to determine who is best in the interests of a child is somewhat surreal.
More articulate and game-players are more like to convince these apparatchiks who live well from the services they provide to the court. Some might regard it as a form of child exploitation. The same psychologists sit in the witness boxes and justify their limited interaction with the parties as a possible caveat as to why they may not have it right.

Observations suggest that supposed independent persons are influenced by their own deficiencies.

For someone on the bench to overrule an expert or a children's lawyer is a shortcut to the Appeals Court.

Watched a case that went for 10 days last year. The couple that won custody of the children lasted about three months before separating. The basis upon which the independent lawyer made her assessments were illusions. The children were uprooted from a surfing lifestyle to a inland property. The sense that the independent lawyer had of what is a good life here was distorted by her seeming city-fied existence.

On another occasion a woman was subject to a character assassination by an expert witness because she had challenged the values of the psychologist. The other party played the game so well that violent tendencies were regarded as insignificant. As an independent observer it was difficult to accept that the court would give custody of a child to one who was allegedly interfering with a young girl.

There may be a need to ensure that those making the decisions are accountable and that they are compelled to publicly acknowledge responsibility for their actions.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
D4E the point I was trying to make is that I recognise some of the posters as being either at the front line of Dids or in the Courts.

Without offending anyone I think this represents a more informed opinion than from people that have had only brief experiences.

Everyone has a viewpoint but I err on the side of those with street credentials to back up what they are saying.
I don't think anyone could take offence.

Both organisations are actually just differing aspects of the same and some are at different stages.

I have no doubt that each provide excellent tools to those who read either or both forums for the stage that the individual is at.

Much of DIDs focuses on the pain and recovering to the point where you can fight again and with any luck SRL will be the next stop so they can learn to fight.

One thing to consider is that the DID's forum does not follow the process of a DID's meeting and therefore people discuss more than what would be discussed in a meeting to my understanding.

All entities that work towards helping others to the best of their ability has a place, all will make mistakes but all are trying to help in the best way they can.

They all have people helping people.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets