Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Court Demands RESPECT or "leave your soapbox at home!"

Must read post for those self representing people

One of the most common complaints about the Family Court of Australia was the courts percieved unwillingness to sanction unacceptable behavior. Usually relating to the compliance with its orders. Elswere on this site cases are reported that demonstrate very clearly that the court expect their orders to be followed - OR ELSE!!!!!!

Yesterday a Self represented father took his soap box to court. He got jail. The father was upset that his case had taken so long to get to court. Yes, that may have been unfair. But to attack the very person who has the power to resolve the situation is both arrogant and really really DUMB. The father tried to tell the judge how to run the court. Justice Bennet ordered that the father be Jailed to give the father time to consider his position.

Justice Bennet then made arrangements for the father to participate in the hearing (should he bother to turn up) via video link from another part of the court building.

There is a simple moral to this story. If you have issues, with the system, take those issues to your polititian, thats what polititians get paid for. If you have emotional issues, seek help from a professional (Your doctor can arrange psychological counselling under medicare) or a support group such as Dads in Distress or Lone Fathers or many many others.

The judge's job is to determine what the FACTS are, and then make orders that offer the children the best outcome in the circumstances. Thats what they get paid for. Taking your POLITICAL and EMOTIONAL issues to court only prevent you focussing on presenting your own case. You surely WON"T be heard andWILL get a lousy outcome.

Kent & Adams FamCA [2007]40

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!

A must read post on what NOT to do in court

This is an EXTREMLY Important message and must be clearly understood. If you are in the courtroom you MUST follow the rules of the court and appropriate dignity and decorum must be afforded the establishment. I advise people to consider wearing proper and formal attire. The Judge must be respected at all times. There is no room for complacency here.

I wonder who the poor Mackenzie Friend might have been if there was one ?? The father must be extremly upset over the evnts that have built up for some years…and is probably regretting his behaviour.

I hope this case has a good resolution and outcome for the child involved. Keep us posted.  :(

Site Director

Reading between the Lines

It is worth reading this judgement. It does not take much immagination to realise that Justice Bennet odered the father to be released almost immediately, to allow a return to court and the case to continue. Apparently the father refused to leave the cells.

Courtis definitely not the place for a soapbox. Even less is it the place for childish behavior. Parenting requires adult responsibility and decisions. You figure out the rest for yourself. The Judge WILL.

Which do you want to be " responsible and involved Parent" or an "Ex Parent"?

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Unfortunately for the gentleman concerned - he learnt the hard way.

The 'SRL-Resources' Powerpoint presentations WARN against using the Court as a soapbox and there is even a quotefrom a previous case concerning the same issue.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas.

Father still using Soapbox

The Father is the Kent and Adams case is still having difficulty getting the message.

The message is a fairly simple one. Respect and follow the rules of the court. That includes answering the questions put in cross examination. And a party confining their "evidence" and "requests" to matters that are both relavent to the case and that the court has juristiction over.

In this case the father asked (demanded) while being cross examined by the other party, that the Federal Police Officers who had previously exercised a recovery warrent be supoeanered to court to answer questions on what they did while exercising that recovery.

The father also demanded the Judge step down from the case on the grounds of Bias. (The fathers 4th such application).

The Father then asked for an ajournemnt so he might obtain Legal Representation from an organistaion that supports culturally diverse peoples, complaining that there was nobody supporting him in court who understood his cultural issues.

This case effectively demonstrates whatNOT to do in court. It is extremely important that any party expecting to be heard by the court follows the rules of the court and respects the court.

I expect we will see more case where the court will takes steps to discipline time wasters.

The Judge also explained that the Court is an OPEN court, with many seats available for people to observe the proceedings. So unless a person is a witness in the case they are welcome to be in the court room, as long as they obey the rules of the court.

And consider this. If you have a case in court, the resolution of your case will be delayed by the antics of people like the father in this case. Most courts currently have a huge backlog of cases awaiting trial. Every occasion where the court process is delayed, affects many other case in the list or awaiing a place on the list.

Kent and Adams 2007 FamCA 52 - Keep to the Isuues
Kent and Adams 2007 FamCA 71 - Grandstanding

Mr Adams (not his real name) is still at it. Her Honour presiding has I believe been very lenient (TOO LENIENT?) with mr adams. Issues such as refusing to answer questions from the child rep before his own questions to the judge, whom mr adams addresses by he christian name. The judge told my adams that the only question she will entertain from him during his cross examination was a request to go to the toilet. It should note the mr adams has already been confined to participating in the trial by video link from another location in the court. Now his microphone has been turned off. He may apply in writing using a formal application and affidavit (it may be simple) to have his microphone turned back on. Not hard to see where this one is going. Breech of formal undertaking to court equalls contempt equalls jail. The judges even ordered that a copy of an unpublished Judgement be given to all the parties. The point being one party was already in jail and refused to cooperate and participate by videolink. That judgemnt was heard without any further participation by the inmate.

You will also note the change in title of the case. I suspect the Judge believes mr adams is having a contest with his inner child, and unfortunately for mr adams, the innner child is winning. Also, what was to be a 5 day trial is into it's 11th day, I don't know about you, but I would be very annoyed if my case was on the list in Melbourneand mr adams antics weredelaying the determination of my matter.



Last edit: by oneadadc

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Husband succeeds in High Court appeal  
Tuesday, 25 September, 2007      
The case of Mead andMead(2006) FLC 93-267 involved an appeal by the wife against an order for contempt made by Cohen J which resulted in her being sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The wife submitted that the trial judge erred in concluding that she was aware of the order and the terms of the order. The wife further submitted that the trial judge erred by drawing adverse inferences as a consequence of her failure to give evidence of privileged communications with her lawyers. The husband submitted that there was evidence that the wife was aware of the orders.

The appeal was allowed (Holden and Coleman JJ; May J dissenting). The husband appealed the Full Court's decision to the High Court of Australia and judgment was handed down on 22 May 2007 in his favour. The High Court found that the rule relating to legal professional privilege does not prevent the drawing of inferences about the knowledge of a party from events and circumstances even if the source of such knowledge is a privileged communication.

The full judgment of the High Court of Australia is published in this update

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha

Adams & Adams No 8 - The FINAL chapter - for now.

The final chapter in the Adams & Adams (Nee Kent & Adams) has been written - A total of 185 pages for approximately 87 THOUSAND words.

Justice Bennet has demonstrated incredible forbearance, while the father is to have no contact at present, the orders leave the door open for him to apply to court for contact in the future, if he decides to get his proverbial together.

While not having read the complete judement yet, one point I would like to not - The father is probably the only person ever thrown out of the cells!

Father BURNS bridges - Not to contact Children

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets