Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Supervised Contact

Add Topic

When is supervision really necessary and who realistically should be a supervisor?

My partner's ex-wife currently insists on supervising all time that my partner spends with his 4 children aged between 12 and 2 which of course is restricting him severely not only in spending time with the children but also in maintaining the healthy relationship that he once had with them and implementing any routine for the time he spends with them.  

She asserts that he is suffering from mental health problems however he has provided her with a letter from his general practitioner suggesting otherwise yet she does not accept this medical practitioner's view and is still insistent on her supervising the contact. In an attempt to make the situation better he has proposed numerous alternative supervisors to alleviate her anxieties however she has rejected each of the people proposed for varying reasons, such as they are too old or the children do not have an established relationship with them. Of course this is extremely frustrating for him and unfortunately there are no Court Orders in place yet to assist him.  

My partner has told me that his ex-wife always controlled everything during the marriage and he feels that she is now trying to exclude him from the children's lives and will do anything to achieve that.  He has sought legal representation in relation to the matter and proceedings have been commenced in the Court however the building costs of this representation are taking their toll and he is unsure how long he will be able to afford that representation.

Any suggestions on how to deal with this situation would be most appreciated as he would like to avoid, if possible, creating further conflict but fails to see why his time with the children should be supervised when there are no apparent risks associated with him looking after the children.  Also any views on when supervision should be required would be welcomed.



I can only speak from my own experience which sounds nearly identical.

It really sounds like another case of BPD with the ex, classic symptoms.

In my case it worked well to let it play out, outside of the court rooms then into court. There needs to be just reason why the father needs to be supervised when with the children and particularly why she is allienating him in this way.

If he has a clean record and is willing to give up work time and show measures on how he will acccomodate the children in his life, this will go a long way. Honestly if he is a good loving father with no proven mental illnesses, abuse records or criminal record and a good standing in society there should be no reason why he should not be able to see his children 50% of the time unsupervised. First 'text book' approach by mothers is the old "he's depressed" claim. Get a phycologist report to quash that one, or not.

There are so many variables one being who the judge is, and how she/he feels on the day, how close it is to eating time, empty stomach makes for a short tempered judge. In my case, and most less adversarial cases of today the solicitors have little say in court and it comes down the the parents and the judge, they can see what is going on it is how you present the facts. No trivial detail at all, and it is all about the children and their best interests, I would say in your case the ex would think the childrens best interests are to be with her, she would still be at the selfish and ownership stage.
Yep, this is absolutely a control issue, and I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with her own manipulative inclinations than any honest concerns for the children.

My partner suffered for years under the exact same kind of control and manipulation from his ex, who would restrict access, demand supervision for absolutely no reason, and hold the child over his head as a means of getting him to do her favours, give her extra money, and most significantly, as a method of forcefully remaining a large part of his life for years after he broke it off.

He put up with her rot for years because he thought it was the only way he could see his daughter (ie, on her terms) and he did not know his rights. Once he got a solicitor and took it to the Family Court, he ended up with 50/50 shared care, and hasn't looked back. Eight years on she is STILL interfering, controlling and manipulating wherever possible. Interestingly sd, I have just recently studied BPD, and this woman too is a classic text book example.

Guest, the reason I say all this is because I see your partner in the same situation, and it angers me so much that some women will take advantage of the fact that men often don't know their rights,  and assume the woman has all control unless she says otherwise. If he is a willing and able father and he his mental health is under control (even if he did have depression, it's treatable), then his children have every right to develop a loving relationship with him one on one.

If he takes it to court and she continues demanding he be supervised, the onus will be on HER to show why he should be. And if there is no logical reason, then I doubt any judge would continue the supervision. He will also have the opportunity to apply for court ordered access at set times and dates, and she will have no choice but to adhere to that. But mediation is the first step in the process, so he should contact a family relationship centre and get the ball rolling (it can take a while - the sooner the better).

On a more personal note - be wary of this woman. If she does have a personailty disorder and she's  determined to retain her control, the next thing you'll probably see is an AVO or abuse allegations, because those would give her REASON to demand supervised access. The fact that it didn't happen won't be an issue to her - she'll fabricate it anyway. If I was in his position, I would document EVERY ENCOUNTER with this woman in a diary, complete with dates and times, even if nothing occurs. It may seem over the top now, but if she does try anything, it will become invaluable later on. Good luck!   
Hi justin site signed out again,
Guest, SD and Rabbit, I agree BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) and PPD (Paranoid Personality Disorder) seem to go hand in hand, although the symptoms of PPD can heighten when Post Natal Depression is at its most influential, as I see it.

We are of cause talking Personality Disorders that have there base in perceptions by the person of abuse of that person when they were a child heightened by hormone changes caused by nature.

This does not make those behaviours any more acceptable but leads to understanding why victims often are victims and not prosecutors of the crimes committed against them.

As Humans we have an inbuilt sense, if I can use that term, for those disadvantaged by nature and therefore do not seek to extend that disadvantage. We tend to appease that disadvantage to our detriment at law, that is the law or lawyers see it as a weakness and tend to work on that as an advantage then blow their stack by granting each other Immunity, including the mother, when they are challenged on their wrongful claim the victim will not defend themself.

In short, the person with the Disorder and the legal's who have protected that person will turn on the father with the view of seeking revenge for identifying the mothers failings caused by nature regardless of the fact the children are in danger of being caused the same Personality Disorders as their mother.

The legal's, including judges, need a continuance or enlargement of work for their income to maintain or accommodate the increasing numbers entering the legal area, if they deter falsehoods and perjury they cut their own throats in regard to work.

Although "SD" what you say "they can see what is going on it is how you present the facts. No trivial detail at all, and it is all about the children and their best interests, I would say in your case the ex would think the childrens best interests are to be with her, she would still be at the selfish and ownership stage."

Does support there is a change I have not seen myself, hopefully this is enlarged on rather than quashed as it has been in the past.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets