Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Bale-Sutch and Bale-Sutch a little interesting

I didn't want to add this onto the topic I found due to it's age but I did find it an interesting point of discussion.
http://flwg.com.au/forum/pg/topicview/misc/521/index.php&start=0#post_1688
This post was about a case that said a contravention was not made by the father because he didn't turn up to have his time with the children. The Judge said that spend time with was an entitlement not a burden or an obligation.
What I would like to ask as a little discussion more than a question, What if it was live with time? is it still a entitlement only? What if the father was only taking one child and not the other? What is the view then?

I found this very interesting that the judge would look at it this way as it opens up a whole world of questions on where is the line drawn?

In my opinion if it was giving up Live with time on several occassions in my mind you would in a way be guilty of fraud to csa and possibly centrelink, but probably not legally. When one child is taken and the other left behind I would see this as emotional abuse tearing the siblings apart.

This may not be the right place to put it and please move if it's not but I thought this would be an interesting discussion. I have been looking at many cases where the judge/magistrate has made such a generalisation and yet it could potentially open a whole new can of worms for the court system.
You've heard the short of my opinion but probably would have no legal standing. What do other's make of this?
Lives with status comes with many burdens. One of which is faciliatation of a relationship between the chid/ren and the "spends time with" parent.

The spends time with parent does not have to take advantage of the time awarded in court orders. They also do not have to accept time with the children if the "lives with" parent cannot look after them. They have to be given right of first refusal, but are not obligated to say yes.

CSA and court orders are not currently linked too directly. A "lives with parent" can currently withhold children, approach CSA and provide evidence of care and the "spends time with" parent will have their CSA charge increased, regardless of court orders.

If the "spends time with" parent is not taking advantage of the time awarded in court orders, or parenting agreement, then the current practice has changed. One could argue a return to court to change the orders to reflect the long-standing practice.

Of course, this is a legal perspective and most of these problems are better either left to go through to the keeper or brought up in a mediation.

Faith, we prefer gender neutral terms on these forums. Both genders seem to do naughty things in equal measure.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis, I didn't mean to seem gender bias I was infact refering to the father as based on the case that was listed in the previous topic listed that's why I then ended up using generalisation, ofcourse it would relate to most genders and I actually have a friend this has happened to where the mother gave up her spend time with period. Maybe I wasn't clear on the "Lives with" I was meaning if it was for both parents(such as in many cases now), if one decided to not take their time or if one parent decided to take one child or not the other(or add for extra children LOL).
Sorry if it seemed offensive it was more something in regards to gender. I thought would be a good discussion as a hypothetical if the situation was different as these were my thoughts when reading on this case. It occured to me that this should not have been such a generalisation and what are the possibilities that could happen to use this as an excuse or if these other issues occured.
Sorry Faith, the link did not work for me.

I think you have raised an interesting debate though, that will be informative to many.

Hypothetically, a parent picking up one child and not the other could be explained away as that child not wanting to go.

Unless a case was underway and there was a family report writer involved, it would be very he said/she said.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Sorry artemis, my apologies I did not check the link worked before I added it.
For those interested it is under making changes to australian family law then case law and is posted as Bale-Sutch and Bale-Sutch. It was posted in 2007 which is why I started a new topic, I did not want to rehash and vary an older post.

Good point though Artemis, I really like your responses. It is a very good topic to discuss in my opinion.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets