BR, Methinks you may be onto summink there! 'The orders by Justice Pxxxx were not final but there is probably not enough to keep it going at this moment." (post judgment feedback from B&G Counsel 2003) although wishful thinking to my mind is arriving at a win/win for both parents and kids WITHOUT entering the court process again.
As an aside, I stumbled across a discussion paper on the site last night re: High Conflict Cases. The BPD key traits are like reading a detailed description of the x (sadly) and because of that;the prospect of attaining the w/w mentioned above is a but a zephyr of fancy flitting across ones preferred reality.
Hi Monaro, Thanks for the input. The variation I am wanting to secure is for the orders to become generic in light of the contribution I am making. A/ Shared travelling to drop and pick up(I live in Perth, my kids are in Manjimup 300km away) B/ Being able to have input into any decisions affecting the welfare,education etc of the Kids (ages 11G,13B & 16B) My ex is a challenged individual and gains security from a unilateral approach to everything.(herway or highway)
As you see, not a major 'ask' as far as the compromise of orders go, however the 'Rice& Aspinall' buzz word has got me on the back foot as per my standing.I won't go into past history, but as an insight, it took 3 appearances in the FC(1 unrep and 2 with budget counsel) to get a clearer definition of access. Like most newbies to the sep scene, I was a lamb unto slaughter. The upshot of the court process was- she refused mediation with me present, the mediator had to shuffle between I and her+her counsel. I approached all due process in text book "total wrong" manner and after the magistrate refused to rule on issues we could not agree upon… My counsel(Black&Gold brand) suggested we appeal.Judge ruled as I was unable to contribute to welfare, I shoulder the cost of access. Times change and I believe that if I pay full assessment, then I should not have to still shoulder the full cost of access. The risk factor to the kids did not seem to rate a mention in the Court when judgment was given…
Anyway, that gives a brief history; again :thanks for the input.
I have existing consent orders from 2003(interim). My circumstances at that time: fulltime mature age student doing a Bachelors degree, Austudy and minimum assessment by CSA. The mother moved 300km away(still there) and the cost and responsibility for access fell to me due to the low contributions(she got/took 100% of settlement though).
For 3yrs I never missed a fortnightly access,7hrs round trip Friday and same on Sunday(doing that was cheaper than tenting it in the winter and take away food all weekend) 1week every holidays & 3 wks over Xmas break.
I have remarried, re-entered fulltime work(and paying full maintenance) yet still expected to drive 1300km an access weekend by the X and abused because I don't have the kids on hols for a week(youngest is 11) She is adamant the orders are fine(she would wouldn't she) I believe the maintenance I pay calls for shared responsibility of access delivery. "in the best interests of the children" does not hold true when I have to shoulder the burden of driving all that distance to see my kids after having to work a full day.(only once a month now as it has taken its toll on me over the years)
Had 3 bad experiences in a row with legal representation, so not enamoured with the idea of more $ lining a Suit's pocket for nil result. Now of course, my $900+/mth the CSA bagman supplies the mother would be put to good use by her, in defending her righteousness!!
From what I have read, there are a lot of very knowledgeable people on these matters populating this site. Some input and opinions of the strength of my argument (or lack of perhaps) would be appreciated.
I recently went through he process of COA, attempting (naively) to bring some balance and equality to the assessment, and challenges I face in its servicing as well as a debt+ penalties together with a HELP debt. The upshot of the phone conference was that my reasons did not fit in with the exact criteria stated in 1-10 and the Case Officer was not authorised to make judgments or give opinions. My information and documentation supplied was sent to the respondent, her phone conference after mine of course! No documentation was required of her to prove her verbal recanting of my written submission and no further discussion able to be entered into easily with CSA re the fabricated truths espoused to them by the mother in the summary decision letter which finally arrived.
A lot of effort and stress for no result. I concur with the earlier posts re turn the rules back on them (CSA)and make them accountable, wherever possible, for the onus of proof; as backflips through hoops of fire still leaves all control in their hands.