Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Specific medical concerns in consent orders...

Add Topic
Hi,

I am due to go to mediation in a few weeks with the ex over our son, 3y/o. I don't want our son getting the swine flu needle, or any other fluey type needles for that matter, but ex's new wife is very head strong on the subject. I would like it written into our orders/plan that Ethan will not get any immunizations etc. (Specifically the swine flu one).

He has been out of contact with our son for 12 months now, and has only met him a hand full of times. (Was not in the picture until child was 18months old)

He also wants equal shared parental responsibility, but I don't agree with that, as he is basically a stranger in our sons life. I am willing to review the orders/plans in 12 months time and make appropriate changes reflecting any progress, but right now I am dead against it. If mediation didn't work out, and it went to court, what do you think my chances woudl be of getting 100% parental responsibility?

(Ex lives over 2 hours away BTW)

Any advice?
MissBetty said
I am due to go to mediation in a few weeks with the ex over our son, 3y/o. I don't want our son getting the swine flu needle, or any other fluey type needles for that matter, but ex's new wife is very head strong on the subject. I would like it written into our orders/plan that Ethan will not get any immunizations etc. (Specifically the swine flu one).
You sound pretty headstrong against immunizations. Unless you have some really good medical evidence to back you up the Courts generally do not side with what are laymen's totally erroneous misbeliefs about immunization.
MissBetty said
If mediation didn't work out, and it went to court, what do you think my chances woudl be of getting 100% parental responsibility?
Read some of the material and Judgements on this site. Less than 1%!
MissBetty said
Any advice?
Spend some time reading the material on this site and speak to a lawyer because you have asked two questions that might cause you grief in a Court.

Conan said
MissBetty said
I am due to go to mediation in a few weeks with the ex over our son, 3y/o. I don't want our son getting the swine flu needle, or any other fluey type needles for that matter, but ex's new wife is very head strong on the subject. I would like it written into our orders/plan that Ethan will not get any immunizations etc. (Specifically the swine flu one).
You sound pretty headstrong against immunizations. Unless you have some really good medical evidence to back you up the Courts generally do not side with what are laymen's totally erroneous misbeliefs about immunization.
MissBetty said
If mediation didn't work out, and it went to court, what do you think my chances woudl be of getting 100% parental responsibility?
Read some of the material and Judgements on this site. Less than 1%!



 
No, just the swine flu shot. He is fully immunized against everything else actually.


So, if a father just walked into a childs life after a few years of not knowing them, they would immediately get equal shared parental responsibility??




Thanks for the welcome reallyconfused. I understand some people may get a bit upset on these sorts of forums. It's a very sensitive issue. I have alot of single parent friends, (most of them Dad's actually, more than half of them have their kids full time too so I know it can and does work the other way) and I am part of a blended family myself.
Good point about the names, although they can'tuse any info I post even if I don't specifically name them can't they? I mean, if they know for a fact it is me?

It has been very rough, and emotionally draining. the funny thing is, I pretty much agreed to everything he asked for in his plan, except I just wanted a few re-introductory meetings before I handed my son over for a few days. I keep getting told off about his father's rights, what about my son's right to be eased into this?

Anyhow, I appreciate the heads up. I am pressuming there is a birth mother area on here, maybe I would be better off sticking to that area…
MissBetty said
I would like it written into our orders/plan that Ethan will not get any immunizations etc.
 
MissBetty said
No, just the swine flu shot. He is fully immunized against everything else actually.
  Perhaps you should make up your mind. Why on Earth would you not want to vaccinate against the most virulent form of influenza virus?
MissBetty said
I keep getting told off about his father's rights,
Read some material on the site, he dosen't have any!
MissBetty said
Anyhow, I appreciate the heads up. I am pressuming there is a birth mother area on here, maybe I would be better off sticking to that area…
Your very question implies you haven not bothered to have a look around the site. Why would there be an area like that on a site that calls itself Family Law. Perhaps you should go to the Essential Baby site.

Conan said
MissBetty said
I would like it written into our orders/plan that Ethan will not get any immunizations etc.
 
MissBetty said
No, just the swine flu shot. He is fully immunized against everything else actually.
  Perhaps you should make up your mind. Why on Earth would you not want to vaccinate against the most virulent form of influenza virus?
MissBetty said
I keep getting told off about his father's rights,
Read some material on the site, he dosen't have any!
MissBetty said
Anyhow, I appreciate the heads up. I am pressuming there is a birth mother area on here, maybe I would be better off sticking to that area…
Your very question implies you haven not bothered to have a look around the site. Why would there be an area like that on a site that calls itself Family Law. Perhaps you should go to the Essential Baby site.


 
Wow, aren't you just a little ray of sunshine??

#1 - I am not against immunizations, as stated, my son is fully immunized with the regular schedule.  I want it in the order that my son will not be taken to get the swine flu shot by anyone, my reasons are valid and I can promise I have done a great deal of research, as well as lengthy discussions with our GP about it, and he agrees.

Whether you agree with the swine flu shot or not, it's not what my question asked. I WILL NOT go into a debate about immunizations, flu shot, swine flu shot etc on here, as this is not what I joined for.
I am here for answers related to legal questions I have. How rude of you to march in here and be so condescending.

You DON'T know my situation, I simply asked a couple of questions and hoped that someone had maybe experienced the same thing and would be able to give me some advice, I certainly didn't think that I was going to be un-welcomed like this.

:offtopic:
I think you would have to present an extremely strong case as to why you should have 100% parental responsibility, especially when you say that you would consider reviewing it in twelve months time.

I am not sure whether you are confusing parental responsibilty with parental time. They are two totally different things. Just because a court may order shared parental responsbility does not mean that equal time would be ordered. It may be in this case, due to the father not having had contact for 12 months (for reasons known only by yourself and himself) that a regime of increased time would be the better option to be considered.

Mediation is not court. It is a stepping stone, that if not succesful, can be used prior to going to court. It is everyone's best interests to not go to court, if it can be helped.

Mediation is just that, mediation, an opportunity to discuss matter and hopefully reached some agreed solutions.

Shared responsbility concerns all sorts of matters, not just health. And areas that need joint decisions made, should be discussed by both parties. In your very first paragraph you stated that you did not want your son to get any immunisations and then said that you didn't want him to get the swine flu vaccination, although you have had him provided with all the other childhood immunisations. You would be better off phrasing it that you would rather him not have any immunisations that are not on the childhood schedule, that is, if you are happy for him to have the usual tetanus, mmr, etc. You may be surprised, your ex, may not want him to have the swine flu vac. either. These are the sort of issues that need to be discussed, not just one party saying this will be done, or not done.

And don't be so harsh on Conan, he is a valuable contributer to this site, and can and does on occassions come up with some very valid points. Sometimes we need some like Conan to "march in here", even if it is just to keep us on our toes, and our minds that little bit sharper. (and no, I am in no way related to, affiliated with or sponsored by Conan)

This is a website for family law, not a debating area for the fors and against of swine flu vaccinations.

Miss Betty, you need to remember that family law is about what is in the best interests of the child. It is about the child's right to know and have a realtionship with both parents. Not a parent's right to have a relationship with the child. The parents have a responsibility for the child, not rights.

And no, there is not a birth mothers area on the forum, because it is about family law, and a family encompasses everyone, male or female. In theory, what applies to one gender, equally applies to the other.
I will have to elaborate further I see.

My sons father has seen our son 4 times. And didn't meet him until he was 18 months old. After those 4 visits, over a space of 5 months, he suddenly stopped all contact. This lasted for 3 months until he came back with his guns blazing, demanding his parental rights to our son.

I suggested a plan be drawn up, something we could both have some input in. Alls I wanted was a re-introductory period, of 2 day visits, then 2 over night visits, before throwing him back in the deep end with people who he barely remembered. it has been over 12 months since he has had contact with our son, due to us trying to work a plan out and mediation being organised, plus when he disappeared for a few months.

He wants a say in where our son goes to school. He wants copies of daycare records, medical records etc. What if this man drops out of our sons life again? I will have to still answer to him for everything to do with our son!

I know the difference between shared time and shared responsibility, I just don't see why a stranger should be allowed an equal say in the childs life. As I said, I would be more than happy to have the plan changed after 12 months, if everything is going good for him and my son. Ie: they have a strong bond and he is still in the picture.

I have never claimed to have any rights. I am firmly believe I am doing what is best for our son. I despise my ex, with every fibre in me, but it is not my place to say he can never know his father.
I am always hearing, well he is his father, he has a right to have him, well my son has a right to be eased into this situation comfortably. He is after all, only 3 years old.
MissBetty said
I suggested a plan be drawn up, something we could both have some input in. Alls I wanted was a re-introductory period, of 2 day visits, then 2 over night visits, before throwing him back in the deep end with people who he barely remembered.
And if you went to Court that is probably what the Court would do.
MissBetty said
I have never claimed to have any rights. I am firmly believe I am doing what is best for our son. I despise my ex, with every fibre in me,
Well that seems like mediation will not work. You had better start preparing for Court.

Boots, I am trying to get this lady to read a little and understand more. As we both know this is not a bleeding hearts club forum. Better to learn the error of our ways here rather than get shouted at in Court.


Hi all, justin here.
Unusual but I agree with what Conan has said and with unusual tongue in check direct MissBetty to look at what see is saying and realise her words and actions (or lack of) contradict her claimed intentions.

Why has this father had so little interaction with this child "it has been over 12 months since he has had contact with our son,"  if you are claiming "Alls I wanted was a re-introductory period,"

The appearance is when the father has tried to spend some time and be re-introduced to the child you have denied them that time. Then you wonder why the father is going to take you to Court for a RIGHT the CHILD has, that is the right to know and spend time with both parents and all of his/her family members.

Your appearance is you alone created this child and therefore you alone shall have the say and right to control the life of this child. This is what I get from your words and although it is the common direction a lot of woman and lawyers place before the Court, if there is no evidence other than your denial of interaction between the 2 then made you should on a site that aids and abets the abuse of children (Family Violence Vic Law; a family member denying a family member the time or right to spend time with another family member)

Mediation is not just about making agreements, it is about demonstrating your truthful intention to do right by the child and make the child available to spend time with the father when possible/practicable.

Like on your mediation days did you let the father and child have lunch in a restaurant while you sit at the other end out of immediate sight of the child?

Would this be too much to ask and do? If so, demonstrates a need for control and no interest in the rights or what is best for the child.

 How often have you refused to allow the father to see or spend any time with the child when he has asked to spend time with the child? It sounds like more often than not, common practice but is it for your want of control or has the father done something you have not said. This is another demonstration of a need for control and no interest in the rights or what is best for the child.
Hear, hear Justin.

I too would like to know, why, if the parties have been trying to work this contact issue out in mediation, why the father has not seen the child for 12 months. What restrictions or limitations are you putting on the "introductory period". You say two days, but what does that actually mean. What did the father propose? How do the two options compare?

You say, I don't see why a stranger should have an equal say in a child's life. But this man is not a stranger, he is the child's father.

Then you say - I would be more than happy to have the plan changed after 12 months, if everything is going good for him and my son. Ie: they have a strong bond and he is still in the picture.

Who is going to be the person who passes "judgement" as such on whether there is a strong bond etc? Why does there have to be an assessment of the bond? It still comes across as a control issue.

And Justin has asked some valid questions in his last paragraph.
She could also be worried for her son , going off with a father he does not know will probably cause the child stress, particulary if the child is very attached to the mother.

Miss Betty , I am no expert but I feel that if it went to court the father would be entitled to 'some' access to the child.
If you want to avoid court, try as hard as you can at mediation to come to some sort of arrangement with the father.
The father lives a long way , is he willing to drive 2 hrs every week to see his son? If he has the child on weekdays who will be caring for him if the father is working?

Perhaps offering the father to come and take the child out to dinner once a week , so the child gets comfortable with him again, then lead up to longer stays , perhaps every second weekend etc.
Guest, a child needs 2 parents and for most fathers a meal once a week does not equate to a meaningful relationship.
Guest, as Kalimna says, a child needs both parents. And at 3 years old, where would the father take the child for his "weekly" meal? Would the mother be happy for the child to have Maccas at least once a week, each and every week? It would be a bit much to expect the child to have a picnic dinner (thus having a home cooked meal) in a park in winter. And it would be a much to expect the father to have a meal with the child in the mother's house. That would just confuse the little tyke. And how would the meal outside of the mother's home impact on the child's bedtime?

You ask who will be looking after the child if the father is working, well it can go the other way, who looks after the child when the mother can't.
Since were playing devils advocate here, has anyone really considered the fact that the non-residential parent has only seen the child 4 times in the space of 5 months in the entire 3 years of his life? No offence, but my take on the way that courts see this from the cases Ive read is that its not really considered good form. It seems like MissBettys request for an introductory period is reasonable as you would be aiming a little high to expect any great deal of meaningful time in the early stages with 4 visits in 5 months as your track record. Distance or no distance  hes had 3 years.
Instead of chastising the residential parent for raising the child on her own, surely you cant see any valid reason in placing lazy (sorry but 4 times in 5 months is lazy) parents with children who dont know them for a great deal of meaningful time in the early stages. Even if MissBetty was the biggest control freak in the world  there are ways and means that the Father could have made earlier to ensure that his child knows him better then what he currently does. Again, its all about how much effort a parent is willing to put in prior to going to court. However, I dont think its an issue of MissBetty not allowing the father to see the child. What she is saying is that she doesnt have a lot of recourse to chase him up if he doesnt see the child (which he hasnt). As we all know, it does a great deal of damage to a child when the non-residental parent drops in and drops out of their lives and by blaming the residential parent for this  seems a little misguided to me.
Its not an issue of Mums vs Dads as their are plenty of Fathers out there who raise kids on their own too. There are plenty of well-functioning single-parent families out there so the argument that 2 parents are needed to raise a child is inaccurate.  
MissBetty said that it has been a year since he saw his son, because they were trying to sort something out. We have not been given any reason as to why there has been no contact. Has the father asked for contact and it doesn't suit the mother, has the mother offered contact and it doesn't suit the father.

In our situation, my husband hasn't seen his child since the beginning of January. And if that was all I said about the situation, what would your opinions be? We have been given limited information, so can only offer advice as to how we individually perceive the situation. And we all, as individuals bring our own life experiences into how we view the situation.
reallyconfused said
Even if MissBetty was the biggest control freak in the world  there are ways and means that the Father could have made earlier to ensure that his child knows him better then what he currently does. Again, its all about how much effort a parent is willing to put in prior to going to court.

Its not an issue of Mums vs Dads as their are plenty of Fathers out there who raise kids on their own too. There are plenty of well-functioning single-parent families out there so the argument that 2 parents are needed to raise a child is inaccurate.

Are you sure? Why have you not considered that the father, in such a situation, could be in too much fear to make any of the moves? I believe that you have actually shown, by not considering what so very many currently consider if it's the other gender on the end of the line of such abuse, that in fact gender does come into play, not necessarily consciously, therefore perhaps subconsciously, by not discriminating against what is and what society today says is.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets