Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

fighting recovery

To Srldad

We confirm we act on behalf of Ms. S. We have been instructed that you have failed to return T to our client this day and refer you to the Orders currently in force being made in the Family Court of Australia on 2008. At paragraph 2(B)(d) you will note that it states 'For half of all school term holidays including the long summer holidays at times to be agreed and in default alternating first and second half with changeovers at 3.30pm on the middle day..'.

We are instructed that our client was prepared to a week about arrangement for the holidays but you never confirmed this and did not return her after the first week anyway so in the absence of any different agreement, paragraph 2(B)(d) becomes effective. (in default 1/2 each)

The middle day of the long summer holidays is today yet Sarah remains with you and we are instructed that you have advised our client that you will not be returning her unless she agrees to you having Sarah for two out of every three weekends in the future.

This is not the way to seek a change to an Order: if you wish to seek a change to the current arrangements you will need to apply to the Court in the appropriate way.

We require you to immediately contact our client, confirming that you will make Sarah available for collection from McDonalds no later than 5.00pm on Friday 7 January 2011.

We put you on notice that if T is not returned to our client by 5.00pm on Friday 7 January 201 1, proceedings will be issued on Monday 10 January 201 1 and a costs order will be sought against you and this letter will be produced on the question of costs.

Yours faithfully,

In Reply

We refer to an existent complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner regarding your conflict of interest in this matter and further your failure to be open and frank in dealings with the Commissioner regarding this conflict of interest. In my view the evidence, which has not yet been heard in Court, suggests deliberate deception.

We further point out that this complaint details your firms previous attempt to mislead the Court in relation to obtaining a recover order for Mrs S in circumstances where the child was involved in a mandated Child Protective Services investigation.

Your client knowingly denied the existence of this CPS investigation in her affidavit. JHA swore a false affidavit of service of the court documents, witnessed by an employee Ms A, in a wilful attempt to prosecute her clients case for recovery and enforcement ex parte.

We have made it quite clear in previous documentation and again in the LSC complaint that we do not accept email correspondence from your firm. We certainly do not accept service of court documents by email under any circumstances.

In regards to the current matter Mrs S has refused to discuss my concerns or mediate after being notified of serious child abuse allegations against her.

We put you on notice that if you again attempt to mislead the Court, indicated by the fabrications in your letter, without proper service of the initiating documents this letter will be produced to the Magistrate to refer you to the bar for disciplinary action.

Yours faithfully
The above post is confusing and open to misled assumption without any background information.
@ To Srldad. You response seems unhelpful and probably highly prejudicial to your own position.

You always seem to be spoiling for a 'fight'.

Last year you had concerns that your child had been sexually abused.

Like - seriously - what's going on with you?

4MYDAUGHTER
Thanks for your responses

I apologise if the posts seem confusing. This matter suddenly flared up with a solicitors email 3.50pm Friday threatening legal action 10am Monday morning. It is not likely easy to provide a complete background for a complex case that has been in progress for considerable time.

This solicitor, by agreement of all others involved in family law in this city, is the most unethical and difficult solicitor to deal with - an advocate for WRISC. Hence the legal services commissioner involvement and not just by me.

I sought input of how to deal with and preferably discourage a recovery order in circumstances where the Mother refused to discuss or even consider a risk or mediate child abuse concerns. She had previously sneaked through such an application without my knowledge or opportunity to provide reasonable excuse.  

For the benefit of others I realised that the solicitors email was fishing for case information. I did not send the draft response which was really just thinking out loud. I returned the email as unread.

I went to the Magistrates court today at 9.30am to present my case on short notice. There was no recovery application filed. The registrar told me I should come back throughout the day to check for any filing. The recovery application could be heard at any time.

In fact the application was a ruse. Thirty minutes later I received a phone call from the childs carer informing me that the Mother had arrived with a court order and seized the child. After I refused the bait and confronted the bluff she had followed me to drop off.

Hence one learns the type of case I am unfortunately stuck in. The Mother denies a ratified parenting agreement, abducts the child, runs to a DV refuge, gets legal aid and I have to fight for 2 years from occasional supervised contact  all in the ubiquitously vague best interests of the child.

It is all well and good for others not informed to make judgements and urge restraint and wait like Godot for justice but one learns the reality of family court particularly when the money runs out.
 
Yes I want to fight for my daughter. Who else is going to if I don't stand up for her? Certainly not the high school career counsellor begrudgingly appointed by DHS part time to investigate child sex abuse allegations with a 10 minute visit to mother. Sure I can couch this warfare in the sweetness of the less adversarial language and pretend the platitudes of best interests, as if I don't really mind the other parent trying to remove me from my only child's life but in reality there is a limit Ghandi…

Nevertheless I appreciate the help you provide 4MD. I was not besmirching you in particular. You do a good job. We just have different expectations in different cases with much different women. I simply do not accept one should remain in silent fear of losing contact when a child is being abused … and if Conan sticks his f***king head up with a snide comment I will bite it off with all due respect.
Who are the allegations against?

So the Mother showed the Carer the Court Orders that you both have stipulating the custody (for lack of a better word) arrangements that you have and collected the Child because you refused to give her back.. Without meaning to sound rude, but isn't this taking matters into your own hands and wouldn't potentially hurt your case and further risk not seeing your child at all if you continue to do this?
srldad101 said
… and if Conan (rest of comment is hardly appropriate, is deleted and regardless of Conans views should not have stand. Threats to bite someone under the new definition of violence would almost certainly get an intervention order up. Thoughtful commentary is going to be needed to make any progress here…
and on the 23rd Sept
srldad101 said
We know the protection system is double standard rubbish. There seems little option in your case but to fight back or bend over and whine. Take the matter into your own hands and either prosecute the IO yourself, and at least be heard, or confront the bully with an unseen punch in the guts and then see how intimidating she is. Offer her mutual IVOs or law of the jungle. Toughen up this is family law.
If your verbals and Affidavits are on the same level you are wasting your time… and you wonder why you keep losing in Court.

I am still left wondering how you breaking an order is excused by some action of the Mothers solicitors.

Last edit: by OneRingRules

Thanks Plus1 for your response
Plus1 said
Who are the allegations against?

(a)   The Mother suffers from a mental illness and/or exhibits behaviours consistent with deteriorating mental health to such a degree that the child taken on her fears, secrecy and distrust. This undermines the child having a safe and trusting relationship with the Father where the Family Reports specify this as imperative for the emotional well being of the child.

(b)   The child's Mother has strategically and repeatedly contrived to subject and/or expose the child to family violence for the forensic purpose of manufacturing and secretly recording evidence to remove or reduce the child's relationship with her Father.

©        The child's mother is consumed by the unshakeable belief that the Father is a danger to the child, resulting in 5 known relocations for their survival, still living in hiding for 4 years, refusing to speak in case it is twisted around and used against her, secretly recording everything I say so that I cannot trick her, denying the child medical treatment as unnecessary after the child had pulled out all her eyelashes and enuresis anxiety prevented her going outside, refused to participate in and then obstructing psychological therapy including secretly recording the child psychologist, prevented the school providing information for treatment, prevented dental treatment for the child after enamel malformed, intimidated health professionals, unilaterally changed the child's school excluding me as a contact and generally attempted to minimise and conceal her and the childs problems, and that, as a result the child suffered physical, emotional and psychological harm.

(d)   The Mothers estranged husband, Mr A, has dealt with the child in a way that constitutes sexually assault or interference with the child.
(e)   The Mothers estranged husband, Mr A, has exposed the child to indecent acts.
(f)   The childs Mother, whilst knowing of the allegations and disclosures made by the child about her estranged husband, has attempted to silence the child.
(g)   The childs Mother, whilst knowing of the allegations and disclosures made by the child about her estranged husband has not only refused to believe or even consider that the child might be at risk in her estranged husbands care but allowed the child to go on an overnight camp with the estranged husband.
(h)   The childs Mother, whilst knowing of a Court Order that Mr A not have contact with the child during a CPS investigation, has continued to expose the child to contact with her estranged husband while the CPS investigation was ongoing.

Plus1 said
So the Mother showed the Carer the Court Orders that you both have stipulating the custody (for lack of a better word) arrangements that you have and collected the Child because you refused to give her back.. Without meaning to sound rude, but isn't this taking matters into your own hands and wouldn't potentially hurt your case and further risk not seeing your child at all if you continue to do this?

The Mother showed the Carer (my cousin) her solicitor's letter claiming it was a Court Order for the return of the child and further costs for recovery. I later checked with the Registry there was no such order made.

I will respond further to the issue of Best Interests of the Child superseding justice and the inevitable consequence of taking matters into one's hands, namely, status quo.  

Plus1 said
Who are the allegations against?
So the Mother showed the Carer the Court Orders that you both have stipulating the custody (for lack of a better word) arrangements that you have and collected the Child because you refused to give her back.. Without meaning to sound rude, but isn't this taking matters into your own hands and wouldn't potentially hurt your case and further risk not seeing your child at all if you continue to do this?

I totally agree. I've told SRLDAD that his ongoing conflict with the mother will likely lead to a situation where he will likely lose all contact with his daughter, but it doesn't register with him.

Neither does it seem to register with him that HIS OWN BEHAVIOUR must be causing serious harm to his daughter.

Naturally, SRLDAD thinks the mother's the problem and that she's causing harm to their daughter. But its actually him.

I'm all in favour of shared parenting but if this matter were to get back before a court, there is a very strong argument for the child to have no contact with SRLDAD whatsoever. He certainly has provided the mother with enough ammunition to affect this outcome should she seek it in court.

I understand he has his daughter 4-5 nights per week and half school holidays. Apparently he's not satisfied with that.

Last year he asserted that his daughter was sexually abused and contract a STI from this abuse. Child protection got involved. Dismissed the concerns. SRLDAD not happy.

From my view point it seems that SRLDAD wants to control his ex.

Based on what I've seen here, the best outcome for the child might be for the child to have no contact with SRLDAD. That's were this matters heading.

4MYDAUGHTER
Jordan I quote Zer0ne83 who said
"Further explanation/response to your personal attacks is going to be of no assistance to anyone so I will leave it."
You are not getting the message. They are not personal attacks, they are considered views and opinions. This is not about your daughter, it is about you being right. For three years you have been banging on with the same allegations and the net result is what?
SRLDAD

It's not a personal attack.

If anyone conducted themselves in their family law matter like you're conducting yours, they would likely/eventually lose all contact with their child/ren.

Keep up your high conflict conduct - and you're going to lose contract with your daughter.

keep up your high conflict parental dispute and your are going to cause your daughter serious harm with long-term implications.

You know this is true. You prove good feedback and reasoning to posters on this site about parenting and family law matters.

But you don't seem to be able to apply sensible reasoning to your own matter.

I don't want to see you lose contact with your daughter. But you're making choices and conducting yourself in such a way that will likely to lead to that outcome.

You may even create a situation where your daughter ends up in foster care.

Take my feedback how you want too or not at all. I didn't think for a moment you would accept it.

Watching your matter unfold is like watching a train wreck about to happen - and the train driver doesn't want to hear the warnings.

4MYDAUGHTER
Srldad101,

I genuinely feel really sad for your daughter as she clearly sounds like one little stressed out kid who clearly doesn't deserve any of this - but you have to step back and take some responsibility for that because if your responses on here are anything to go by, you're contributing significantly to her misery.

I don't think you're in a position to comment on the Mother's mental health given that you're unlikely unqualified to do so. It just makes you look foolish if you hypothesise  on this.

If you carry on like a raving banshee, then the Mother doesn't need to manufacture anything to prove Family Violence and that spending time with you, is definitely not in the child's best interests. Furthermore, if you're displaying this behaviour in front of the child, she WILL have the unshakable belief that you're a danger to her and she will display physical signs of stress. That is part and parcel of it and the definition of Family Violence. If this is what you're in fact doing, good on the Mum for recording it, I wish I had of thought of it when I was in the midst of it!

Given that CPS dismissed the concerns the child abuse claims made by you were obviously bogus and vexatious.. drop it. I don't know why people put their children through that knowing that its BS and such an intrusion on their lives. This is a s**t situation for any kid having to go between 2 houses, 2 different lives and being a veritable ping-pong ball but if thats what the Court has ordered then its the responsibility for the Parents to make it work.  Your child is still under an enormous amount of stress and it's time to cut the stupidity out and for God's sake, grow up! Dont whinge about Personal Attacks.. you're posting on a public website so don't think that the world owes you something because you're a 'Boo-hoo, down-and-out Dad'. You come on here looking for advice and opinion and thats what you get - whether its what you want to hear is another issue for YOU to deal with. It really irks me when people start crying out for the Wahmublance and play the Victim of Personal Attacks card.

What do you really want? You're in such an enviable position compared to some Dads on here yet you're creating such a s**t life for your daughter.
If there is something happening then I know how you feel, trying to get people to listen and everyone is ignoring the children's comments and your concerns as the other parent is such a good liar. I have been through this, it's horrible and you feel like screaming at everyone to see whats going on. I learnt my lesson with the courts, child protection and everyone else. I had to sit and not act on my childrens comments about the abuse, it caused many heart breaking weeks of anguish and sleepless nights when they were at ex's but finally other people saw the injuries, listened to the childrens continual complaints, notice change in behaviour and the absolute real fear of leaving with the ex.

so finally it has taken many people seeing it and now action being  taken by other people before anything has happened but it finally has and the children are finally safe. If previously you have acted in withholding the child and taking court action and it has been solely based on childrens statements and ignored then don't act without evidence again - I learnt the hard way and it is heartbreaking thinking no one cares and the next time they go they could land in hospital or worse but it is better to wait on  the evidence than the child return to the other parents full time care.
Plus1 - Who the hell are you to sermonise to me?

I have never seen anything of value in your few posts. Your Johnny come lately ignorance of this case is blindingly obvious in your first useless response. You then ask for public information and offer nothing on that topic.

Perhaps your sad existence is excited by reciting the BIC dogma in a post here and there to gather a few meaningless points. It seems a bit weak to jump on the sycophant bandwagon of personal attack, denied or not, between people who know & understand the process & let off a bit of steam, after this is done and dusted.  Likely you seek favour with those you think worthwhile by rehashing the blatantly obvious I am sorry for the child and you're not qualified.

In fact I was referring to the forensic psychiatrist and multiple doctorate psychologist expert reports and know the information and history withheld from those experts.

Clearly you know nothing about CPS, presumably you believe in the tooth fairy too. I am comfortable with my decision, indeed responsibility, on the evidence not known to you. BS my ass, one can argue the notification by a mandated reporter scared off the predator.

I am not whinging about personal attacks, if you read the post rather than condescend you will see I asked for a fight you simpleton. Better here than real damage.

What do I want well perhaps some advice on colour coordination or if my ass looks big but certainly not your fatuous dribble. Now how do you like it?

=====

Strangely enough some good might come from your question however intentioned.

What I want is for Fathers not to think that 5/9 is an enviable position or have to spend a $100K and 3 years to get it.  I do not want Fathers and their children victimised in and out of court under threat that if they do not submit to the victimizer then conflict is too great for contact.

I want change in a system in which one parent uses a lawyer to kick the literal suitcase out of the other, where any semblance of resistance, much less protest is reconstituted as harmful conflict sufficient to prove they can't share parenting.

I don't want lazy judges simplistically reducing myriad complex issues evolving over years of waiting for trial to findings of credit relating to the parties themselves - that is the court believing one parent over the other. Lives destroyed on a simple mistake without effective recourse to appeal of a discretionary decision. Stop focussing on the parent's dysfunctional relationship, real or contrived, and implement parallel parenting.

Family law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the child and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale. Most custody rulings show no understanding of contemporary society but remain rooted in 1950s marriage contract.

The judiciary resists mandated change with agenda caselaw that effectively circumvents and redefines the statutory best interests of the child and intent of parliamentary reforms. I do not want a few dozen unelected and unaccountable family court judges determining the social and economic welfare of half the Australian population according to their own personal prejudices.

How can one be better off financially by separating than remaining in the tax paying married family. Welfare is the 5th largest item in GDP. Men cannot be expected to carry the financial burdens of family without the benefits of family. Unsurprisingly the national birth rate declines beyond that to sustain population. They offer us the incentive of maternal leave.

In the passive revolution of Gandhi it was pointed out that 60 thousand British troops cannot rule 600 million Indians unless they allowed it. The problem is that the public is unaware. The application of the law is profoundly flawed. Its laughable pretext of gender neutrality and impartiality must be removed and the true face of bias, discrimination and prejudice fully displayed. In Holland judges legislating from the bench resulted in majority failure of their family court orders within 2 years. Holland now applies the presumption of shared parenting. There is no harm in being radical when the status quo breeds injustice.
Srldad,

You think I have a sad existence? Im not the one cruising for a fight on a mostly anonymous website buddy. Why are you wasting your time asking for a fight, jibber-jabbering on about yourself, the injustices of the Family Law system (obviously because it had the audacity to kick your butt) and Ghandi when you should be refocusing on the needs of your child? Sheesh! Train-wreck indeed.   
Srldad101 - usual post that contains a lot of meaningless rhetoric. If you want to change the system then do it properly rather than soap boxing on here.

Some of us do know a little more about your case because you were posting in the private forums when they were still available. For a long while we read self serving nonsense. Clearly you do not listen to anybody and expect people to offer wholesale support even when you are plainly wrong.

You appear obsessed with your amateur diagnosis of the Mothers mental illness, have you ever thought about applying this to your own actions and the consequences to your daughter?

If this ever gets back into Court would you be happy if the Court shuts you out of your daughters life? or is this a subconscious wish so you can claim victim status?

For the sake of your daughter put her first PLEASE
Plus1 said
Srldad,

You think I have a sad existence? Im not the one cruising for a fight on a mostly anonymous website buddy. Why are you wasting your time asking for a fight, jibber-jabbering on about yourself, the injustices of the Family Law system (obviously because it had the audacity to kick your butt) and Ghandi when you should be refocusing on the needs of your child? Sheesh! Train-wreck indeed.   


Isn't cruising for a fight exactly what you are doing? Sad existence QED. Of course you are still throwing punches hiding behind needs of my child.



srldad101 said
….
We confirm we act on behalf of Ms. S. We have been instructed that you have failed to return T to our client this day and refer you to the Orders currently in force being made in the Family Court of Australia on 2008. At paragraph 2(B)(d) you will note that it states 'For half of all school term holidays including the long summer holidays at times to be agreed and in default alternating first and second half with changeovers at 3.30pm on the middle day..'.

We are instructed that our client was prepared to a week about arrangement for the holidays but you never confirmed this and did not return her after the first week anyway so in the absence of any different agreement, paragraph 2(B)(d) becomes effective. (in default 1/2 each)

The middle day of the long summer holidays is today yet Sarah remains with you and we are instructed that you have advised our client that you will not be returning her unless she agrees to you having Sarah for two out of every three weekends in the future.
This seems quite straight forward to me. A reasonably well crafted letter to what seems to be contact arrangements that need to be adhered to.
srldad101 said
The solicitor letter goes on… This is not the way to seek a change to an Order: if you wish to seek a change to the current arrangements you will need to apply to the Court in the appropriate way.

We require you to immediately contact our client, confirming that you will make Sarah available for collection from McDonalds no later than 5.00pm on Friday 7 January 2011.

We put you on notice that if T is not returned to our client by 5.00pm on Friday 7 January 201 1, proceedings will be issued on Monday 10 January 201 1 and a costs order will be sought against you and this letter will be produced on the question of costs.

Yours faithfully,
What seems to be the problem with this? All fairly straight forward. Return the child on Jan 7th or face the possibility of further proceedings. I don't see what the problem is yet.
srldad101 said

In Reply

We refer to an existent complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner regarding your conflict of interest in this matter and further your failure to be open and frank in dealings with the Commissioner regarding this conflict of interest. In my view the evidence, which has not yet been heard in Court, suggests deliberate deception.

We further point out that this complaint details your firms previous attempt to mislead the Court in relation to obtaining a recover order for Mrs S in circumstances where the child was involved in a mandated Child Protective Services investigation.

Your client knowingly denied the existence of this CPS investigation in her affidavit. JHA swore a false affidavit of service of the court documents, witnessed by an employee Ms A, in a wilful attempt to prosecute her clients case for recovery and enforcement ex parte.

We have made it quite clear in previous documentation and again in the LSC complaint that we do not accept email correspondence from your firm. We certainly do not accept service of court documents by email under any circumstances.

In regards to the current matter Mrs S has refused to discuss my concerns or mediate after being notified of serious child abuse allegations against her.

We put you on notice that if you again attempt to mislead the Court, indicated by the fabrications in your letter, without proper service of the initiating documents this letter will be produced to the Magistrate to refer you to the bar for disciplinary action.

Yours faithfully
What has any of this response got to do with the failure to return the child on 7th? It does deal with issues around a previous recovery order. The mother is not required to talk to you or deal with you at all in relation to any matters. The mother has engaged a firm to deal with the family matters. As you are self represented they are not obliged to deal with you at all. As a courtesy, there are quite a few solicitors that do sometimes try to mediate but there are a large portion who don't and will step through the system to effect.

If there are allegations of sexual abuse file a notice and get it dealt with in the same court that made the 2008 orders. The response , if that WAS the response, to that letter from the solicitor, will simply do nothing for your case and they will simply file a recovery order or more likely an enforcement order which will be easier to get anyway and would probably be granted that day. The reply was completely out there quite frankly. If there are other issues around contact have them dealt with by going back and putting valid, reasonable and factual argument on the table.

I note also you allege the mother has a mental illness. You need to be very sure about this and your word she has a mental illness will simply not get anywhere except earn a rebuke at court. This matter seems to involve allegations so there are sexual abuse allegations and mental illness allegations. JIRT are the NSW people involved in sexual abuse allegations and you need to get DOCS to get a complaint up for them to get involved. Certainly there is no better advice than from 4mydaughter in some of these matters.

It seems to me there are two very different issues here. The contact for current orders where contact ends on Jan 7th and a range of allegations that need to be dealt with formerly. Make sure you use the correct form 4 in your application.



Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
srldad101 said
….

What I want is for Fathers not to think that 5/9 is an enviable position or have to spend a $100K and 3 years to get it.  I do not want Fathers and their children victimised in and out of court under threat that if they do not submit to the victimizer then conflict is too great for contact.

I want change in a system in which one parent uses a lawyer to kick the literal suitcase out of the other, where any semblance of resistance, much less protest is reconstituted as harmful conflict sufficient to prove they can't share parenting.

I don't want lazy judges simplistically reducing myriad complex issues evolving over years of waiting for trial to findings of credit relating to the parties themselves - that is the court believing one parent over the other. Lives destroyed on a simple mistake without effective recourse to appeal of a discretionary decision. Stop focussing on the parent's dysfunctional relationship, real or contrived, and implement parallel parenting.

Family law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the child and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale. Most custody rulings show no understanding of contemporary society but remain rooted in 1950s marriage contract.
If these are your views then why not put yourself to work changing the system? With the very greatest respect have you contributed in any detail to the ALRC enquiry last year in relation to Family Violence? AND more importantly have you raised a submission in relation to the 37 proposed changes to the Family Law Act. The submissions close on Friday.

The best way to make a difference is to make submissions and join one of the organisations that is at the coal face in these matters and I would suggest there are at least a dozen or more out there beavering away to make things better for kids. You could even make a very sizable donation to the FLWG who would then put that into further development to get an even better site. You could attend at the bi monthly meetings say with the FLRA. These are some of the constructive things you could do as well.
srldad101 said
…The judiciary resists mandated change with agenda caselaw that effectively circumvents and redefines the statutory best interests of the child and intent of parliamentary reforms.
Welcome to the Common Law system by which we hold dear in Australia. We have attempted to get some real change in a raft of reforms that were put through in July 2006. It was some improvement but over the years we have discovered just how critical the words in every sentence are and the relationship with other sentences in the Act. The writers are a difficult bunch to pin down but we have had and seen some good judgements arising from the reforms.

The key now is to hold on to what we got and build on it.
srldad101 said
…They offer us the incentive of maternal leave.
Read the fine print ! You will find it is not what it seems for fathers. It also requires (If the father is taking up a  percentage) the mother to acknowledge that the father is the primary carer during that time. I wonder how many might do that?


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Thanks Mr Secretary for a reasoned response

The problem with the solicitor letter, which I probably did not make clear, was that it fabricates my reason for withholding the child as trying to coerce the Mother into agreeing to extra time.

They refused to discuss or attend mediation for the real reasons, inter alia, evidence that the Mother has deliberately and repeatedly abused the child to keep the child and further disclosures by the child. Instead they strategically waited 30 days to turn the issue into a  holiday changeover dispute.

This misleading reason was emailed at 4pm Friday to prevent obtaining legal advice or representation for Monday. The recovery application could have been filed and heard ex parte at any time.  

The draft reply was in effect my oral argument in writing to the Court against an ex parte order. I went to Court to present my reasons with evidence. I made the mistake of telling the Mother I would seek a court ordered psychiatric report.

That they resorted to such subterfuge as to bait and follow me to a non-involved persons house and intimidate that person with a false Court order & costs rather than have the evidence heard in Court indicates they know there is something to hide.

It is also a telling indictment of how the system works.


This brings me to the Conan character assassination & smear campaign - the standard family law tactic I'm sure we are all familiar with.

Ordinarily I ignore Conan as being pointless to challenge a multiple personality able to delete any rebuttal problem. However, the number of account deletions by members shows his "amusement" is becoming a problem, so perhaps you might get to read this.

One must question the motives of a supposed general member hoarding for the purpose of reposting the unedited version of an old tongue in cheek suggestion.

Why is the context removed -the Father was being bankrupted, harassed at work, lost his job after the ex contacted his employer, arrested, had his children removed, alienated, isolated from his family & friends by false allegations  and when he tried to stop the harassment with an AVO he copped the gender bias while she sat behind him in court and further intimidated him. This same gender bias happened to me with a female Magistrate adjourning an AVO mention three times until Police withdrew the complaint.

Importantly, at the time Conan offered no advice nor sought to correct the tongue in cheek alternate suggestion he now highlights in bold.

After 3 days of no replies at least I responded and tried to encourage the guy to prosecute the AVO himself. I note that, unlike others, he didn't delete his account in disgust.

Regards the Conan (in 3rd person) implied threat of an AVO for biting him metaphorically. This gives disturbing credence to another member's post (deleted) complaining that his confidential & case information provided for SRL membership had been leaked to the opposition solicitor for an AVO against him.

Discrediting innuendo is so easy. Why then trust the Conan terminator in another assassination - he has secret information and secret others agree and he is divinely right and I am evil and mad and cannot be helped, etc

With respect stop the George Bush nonsense. You do not have and could not have the information to make such judgements. Previously you could not provide any evidence to support your assertions when requested in private. To now repeat those assertions in public epitomises the self-serving, meaningless rhetoric that ironically you accuse me of.

That you knowingly contradict two independent forensic psychiatrists and doctorate psychologist three times regarding my mental health only casts doubt on your own. Your prognosis is scaremongering and insulting which is basically what your character is - censorship by intimidation.

Well, climb down from your cross as our saviour and pro bono martyr. Your abuse is not worth it. When it all is said and done you personally did nothing anyway and are still whining about unavoidably late notice and missing out on free airline tickets and hotel in Melbourne.

If the good people of SRL, with special mention to Artemis & Verdad, do not want to help then fine. But spare us your self-indulgent $400/hr appeasement to your judicial masters on our behalf. Some of us of capable of independent thought. Let us form our own opinions without fear of personal attacks, we might actually know what is best for their own children. Change will then come. If you have nothing constructive to say then shut up and give others a go.

Come back zer0ne83 please.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets