Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Shared Parental Responsibility Ignored

Ok, so I have been reading up on the issue and from what I understand, where there is court ordered shared custody (week about specifically in this case), it is implied that there will be shared parental responsibility unless otherwise specified in the court order. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted this in any way.

I know that schooling falls under the umbrella of long term issues, and I know that in the above mentioned situation, one parent would have to consult the other before making a decision on putting the child in a new school. I know that if they could not agree, mediation would be the next step, and if that fails, off to family court.

What I don't know is… what happens if one of the parents suddenly informs the other that the child has been removed from the current school - which was agreed upon by both parties - and enrolled in another school - which the second parent does NOT agree with? What do you do if the other parent has no knowledge of this decision until it is already done, and the child is due to start at the new school on the very next business day, leaving no time to take action in between? Is there any opportunity for some kind of injunction, or does the new enrollment mean it is already too late?

Thanks all.

EDIT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Just for reference, in case this becomes relevant to anybody else, I have spoken to a solicitor and had this question answered, and was quite shocked at what I was told.

What happens when one parent ignores the presumption of shared parental responsibility, and out of pure spite, removes a happy child from a perfectly good school in which they are content and well adjusted?

Nothing.

My solicitor advised that the options are there to take action, but any course of action taken would likely be a waste of time, money and resources. An application could be made for an injunction, but it would likely take a minimum of 3-6 months before it was heard. And as most people can probably guess, after that amount of time has passed, the court would be reluctant to create another upheaval for the child by having the child moved again to go back to the previous school.

I had already predicted this much, which was why I was hoping there would be some way to have the mother ordered to take the child to the original school until due procedure had been followed (ie, mediation and that failing, family court). I was told that what I was looking for is an appellate injunction, which can be sought to take immediate action in certain situations. However, my solicitor indicated that this is NOT one of those situations. He suggested she would have to be attempting to leave the country or something of similar seriousness.

Understandably, my partner was left asking what on earth is the point of having a presumption of shared parental responsibility within the Family Law Act if essentially, there is no avenue for redress if one parent decides to usurp the other's right to have a say in major decisions relating to their child? The solicitor suggested that he would be well within his rights to take this to court, but it would likely get nowhere except a smack on the hand for the mother, and the court telling her she did the wrong thing - and of course, a couple thousand dollars down the drain.

The schools seem to have no responsibility to ensure two parents are involved in enrolling or un-enrolling a child - even if they have copies of the "lives with/lives with" court orders, and a letter from my partner stating he did not want his child removed from the school under any circumstances. My partner then asked if following the same logic, he could arrive at the new school and simply sign his child out and then re-enrol the child at the original school in the exact same fashion.

The solicitor was quick to point out that this would be greatly frowned upon in court, and was very dangerous ground. Fine and dandy, I can see why, but it makes no sense that the mother can do the EXACT SAME THING, and will simply be slapped on the wrist, and realistically, he wouldn't be in a position of wanting to do such a thing if not for the mother's sly, underhanded ILLEGAL actions in the first place! It seems ridiculous, because what it amounts to is that a vindictive parent can do whatever they want in blatant defiance of the law, so long as they get in first and conduct themselves in a sneaky manner so as not to be caught until it is essentially too late.

So a word of warning there parents - you may think you have a right to shared parental responsibility and involvement in decisions on your child's schooling, but this only applies if the other party plays fair. Essentially, with the right advice or knowledge of the relevant loopholes, they can evade the proper process and do what they think is in the best interest of their own twisted need for control and manipulation, rather than what is in the best interest of the child. It never ceases to amaze me how much one woman can get away with, and how many lives she can leave trampled in her wake in the process. And how little can be done to stop her.
rabbit said
Ok, so I have been reading up on the issue and from what I understand, where there is court ordered shared custody (week about specifically in this case), it is implied that there will be shared parental responsibility unless otherwise specified in the court order. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted this in any way.
Technically you're right in the context you are placing it in for yourself but to save confusion for others…

Unless otherwise specified in Court Orders due to the rebuttable presumption, Shared Parental Responsibility is ALWAYS implied!!!

You do not have to see a Court room to have parental responsibility and nor do you need to have shared care..  Parental Responsibility and Shared Care are very different things…one relates to long term decision making while the other relates to time the children are in your care.

"Never, "for the sake of peace and quiet," deny your own experience or convictions". Dag Hammarskjold
I needed help with my case and couldn't afford a lawyer and found these guys invaluable  srl-resources.org
Yes rabbit, and that is only the beginning of how poorly males/fathers are treated by Australian Family Law, and various other assistance programs and organisations out there, and yet it remains an unchanged criminal act of cruelty and abuse against fathers.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets