Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Family Court & Magistrates encourage & reward conflict

Is it just me or does the family court all along with magistrates encourage & reward conflict?? I am in the middle of family court proceedings where I know my ex. partner has been deliberately driving conflict as they know they will receive greater care pecentage of the child (more conflict = less time with non primary carer) which in turn equals more money. I have been genuinely attempting to work with them and try and settle things out of court and in a reasonable manner for the benefit of our child but to no avail; they just continue to make outrageous accusations and lies succesfully showing conflict, mostly one way but still conflict.

My question is why does the court encourage this practice by rewarding the parent, often the mother, who deliberately drives conflict to "win out" at the cost of the child's well being??
In short… they don't.

Conflict, by definition, cannot be "one way".

If the other side is using examples of dispute/conflict between you and ex in the conduct of handovers/communication s evidence of why the status quo should remain in place, then there is obviously IS conflict otherwise there is nothing to "show" and get mileage out of.

If you are being 100% passive, agreeable and cooperative in negotiating arrangements and conducting handovers, then there wont be anything for 'them' to use against you in the manner in which you suggest.

Your comments in relation to the Family Court and its Judicial Officers 'encouraging/rewarding' conflict is, with respect, ridiculous and clearly the product of subjective perception.

Hope things get better.

- Zer0ne -
Conflict can be a difference of opinion; one opinion can be "right" (possibly in the child's best interests), one can be "wrong" (not in the child's best interests) - this is conflict by definition. By attempting to get the court to see a "wrong" & "right" side can also suggest greater conflict, depending on how the parties "argue" their case AND how the court views things.

I am a father who has been accused by the "other party" of sexually molesting my own son, making sexual advances on a young girl (under 18), being a drug addict, being a stalker, being mentally deranged and an unfit father in many ways. But wait, there more to come, most likely…..  BTW I have no criminal or drug record whatsoever.

All of these allegations are without evidence or substance, however by nature of these accusations and in turn me defending myself, there is a perceived situation of conflict (certainly by the family report writer who's expert opinion does greatly matter). Making the court see this in the right light rather than conflict would likely not happen.

BTW, if I were 100% agreeable with the other party (whether I believed it was reasonable or not) in an attempt to "minimise conflict", I would not necessarily call this negotiation. One could call this something else…
OK, point taken Lamson.

Those are some seriously ugly allegations and if they are to be taken seriously, especially abuse against your own child, there would be a Form 4 Notice of Abuse and Affidavits on file. These = sworn testimony and evidence that said abuse occured - they can't contain opinion/conjecture and if they do why the hell have you not sought to have the Form 4 uplifted and the opinion/conjecture in the Affidavits struck out? If they are totally false allegations without evidence then they will not be entertained by the Court and, ultimately, the other party will wear the consequences. False allegations buy time but if they are 100% BS they will result in your success at Trial and a costs order against the BS-artist.

Abuse - File a Notice to Answer Specific Questions - demand details of when, where, how the alleged abuse occured. Their response should allow you to drill holes in the BS that they cannot recover from.
Drugs - So consent to (or insist upon) drug testing. If she argues you have just stopped the drugs but there is a history, consent to fair follicle analysis - not cheap but will prove you haven't taken drugs for 2+ years (depending on length of hair).

Best of luck - truly.

- Zer0ne -
ZeroOne83 said
If they are totally false allegations without evidence then they will not be entertained by the Court and, ultimately, the other party will wear the consequences. False allegations buy time but if they are 100% BS they will result in your success at Trial and a costs order against the BS-artist.

The courts very frequently and perhaps in even in most circumstances, do entertain such false allegations. I believe there are many on here who have tried to defend against false allegations and that such false allegations have had an impact on the result that favours the one making the false allegations. When it comes to the bulk of decisions consented to out of court then very often false allegations place the accused in a position of settling for less than fair terms due to those false allegations being introduced.

I believe there are many judgements available that indicate that one parent has been classed as not being credible, where it was a one party says this the other party says otherwise situation, with no actual evidence.   
Zer0ne83 said
False allegations buy time but if they are 100% BS they will result in your success at Trial and a costs order against the BS-artist.
False allegations will NOT result in a costs order, there is only a chance they might. Form 4's are par for the course in many proceedings.

There are enough published FCoA and FMC judgments to illustrate that these costs orders are far from common.

SRL-Resources. the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) www.srl-resources.org  Non gender Professional and peer support for SRLs. Closed site, no public forums, no search engines, no lurkers, guests or the other side and their Lawyer and Friends.
MikeT - You are probably right and my perspective is likely to be slightly warped by the fact that I only interact with parties who have the $ to have a lawyer, a barrister on instructions from that lawyer, an independently briefed expert etc. Guess its harder to put up a credible fight when you dont have those resources :(
SRL - Very good point and I should choose my words more carefully. S.117(2A) makes it clear that Costs orders are purely discretionary - I should not have used an absolute. In litigation NOTHING is certain and definately not a Costs Order.
I agree with Mike T - false allegations can be a very powerful manipulative tool in the hands of somebody who is driven enough to follow through at all costs. In my own experience with false accusations, there was absolutely no evidence to corroborate the applicant's claims, and conversely, no evidence to disprove it (obviously -impossible to prove a negative!) So it was basically our word against hers. However, to this end my solicitor advised us not to be too confident, as even in the absence of evidence, the magistrate may simply find one party's version of events "more compelling". Obviously this was only civil standards, but as we all know an AVO is also a powerful in the Family Court, and can instantly reduce one's credibility as a parent/witness etc.

As to costs, forget about it entirely if the accuser is somebody with whom you have had a domestic relationship - and they very often are!
May be the wrong location but the Newspaper today clearly shows the benefits of child abuse http://www.theage.com.au/national/mother-wins-custody-despite-delinquent-attitude-20110103-19duh.html I can only express my complete disgust that such decisions are made which can only encourage similar behaviour by others and hurt many children!  This may have been going on for some time before the Crimes Family Violence Act.
MikeT said
I believe there are many judgements available that indicate that one parent has been classed as not being credible, where it was a one party says this the other party says otherwise situation, with no actual evidence.

And, then there is the opposite, where a recent appeal judgement from the Full Court of Appeal found no credit findings being entertained by the original Magistrate was completely within the law, and allowed to continue and dismissed by the Appeal Justices involved, regardless of evidence provided to the contrary, where false documents were provided to the court by one party and accomplices to that party. There were other credibility issues as well. No wonder the Family Court has the reputation it does when this sort of 'injustice' is allowed to happen at the highest levels.

Shame on a Court system that doesn't uphold its own virtues and values.

The precedent is then set, the one who gets away with their dishonesty perpetuates the cycle, and the lawyers and barristers can now use this information in their cases to win at any cost.

To tell the truth and nothing but the truth, then do something else, should have dire consequences. It would clean up the Family Court pronto, if those who hear the evidence and then make a judgement supposedly based on that evidence, took a stand and honoured their very own ethics and principles and why they are in their position of responsibility in the first place, did not allow this sort of thing to happen, full stop.

Go to court and attempt to pervert the course of justice by whatever means, should be an automatic referral to the Attorney General for prosecution. Now, wouldn't that stop the rubbish quick smart?
They will argue it is not in the best interest of the child for the primary carer to be prosecuted and  either jailed or fined as this will cause the child with great trauma or leave the child without.

However if the primary carer were aware lying were to have grave consequenses they simply would not do it.

I'm certain many non primary carers would be happy for any fines issued by the courts to be held in trust until the non support period ends then distributed to the child.

One only has to look up contraventions on austlii to find more often than not  people who contravene orders just continue to do so because judges simply just slap them on the wrist instead of using the powers they have currently under the act to eradicate this behavior.

It is within there power to caution on first contravention, to fine on second and jail on third.

To date I can find only a judge in Far North Queensland to have done this, leaving the child with the non primary carer during incarceration, He has done it only once and funnily enough Far North Queensland has the smallest number of  repeat offenders re contraventions.

Would Legal Aid and Solicitors continually allow there clients to contravene Orders if they know they are in the court of a judge or magistrate who is known to fine or jail contravenors? I highly doubt it

Just my view

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of  the time unless they work for CSA and youre a Payee:)
@ leroy,

The very same individual mentioned in my thread above, has not attempted to include the father in the decision making process for the ongoing welfare of the child, as per the court orders, which the court was also made aware of. EG, no consultation about the school the child was to attend. It is beyond belief that a court who provides these orders, fails to enforce them, or acknowledge any contravention of such.

No wonder the 'loser' ends up a train wreck at times.
Lamson,

I'm of the opinion that increased conflict is regularly used as a tool to manipulate the family law system.
In most situations there is a minimal amount of conflict this is only natural because of differing opinion and idealisms between parents concerning the best interests of their children, most times it's trivial and negotiable between parties, quickly resolved.

When one party decides to change the status quo they employ tactics that see them benefit and employing the " victim " role to achieve the required changes.

Although I do not believe the system encourages this I do believe it takes advantage of it.

Judgements reflecting Law and president often reflectively use false allegations and conflict as reference points of their decision but rely on the law for those decisions. Evidence can be provided to counter claims of allegations to show manipulations, alienation, alignment and physiological abuse but in summary a judge could concentrate on minor statements from either party to criticise and add further weight to their decision.

Orders are made by the way of law that will not stand an appeal but the additionally commentary in the judges final address may well conflict with the evidence or lack of it, hearsay can be referenced as justification of their decision even though what is verbalized has little to do at times with the matter being dealt with.

I did notice in my case the final address by the judge was contradictory in the fact that it conflicted when he spoke about each party, in one hand he decided to believe the hear say in the other recognise my daughters mother constructed and manipulated the truth to achieve what she wanted as well as actively manipulated the extended family and the child for over a year prior to achieve her goals.

I do not believe the system actively encourages conflict but I do believe they reward conflict, alignment and alienation when imposed by a specific gender orientated participant , rather than go down the path of actively punishing this behavior and discouraging others from utilizing it they do reward it expressing the reward as in the best interests of the child. Not encouraging it but supporting it through acceptance that it can not be discouraged and that it's better for the child to leave them with the physiologically abusive parent in hope the abuse will stop once they get their way.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets