-
I'm interested in people's opinion as to why it would not be either appropriate or in the 'children's best interests' to spend time with their parent during weekdays after work?
If there is a legal reference that supports your own stance (noting that I've read the case-law), I'd be interested to hear it.
-
In this particular case the reasons given were :
1. They are interim orders only;
2. Tyrany of distance (the father now lives in City, the mother in the rural property);
3. Z (8, F) sleeps with her father in the other bedroom.
4. Roster it is not coordinated with the school week (note the distance issue);
5. Nothing to indicate to me that these parents are fully cooperative;
6. Older boys, X and Y, they both identified to the family consultant that they did not like the father’s apartment.
The above are the factors in this case that weighed against the father's proposal. -
So, in your opinion Danny, if everything else was the same but the father had a consistent schedule that included weekends, do you think the Judge would have made a different ruling?
The distance is easily overcome.
Interim orders make it easy for review if things go pear-shape.
Having the youngest child in the father's room is akin to being in a caravan.
Animosity between idiot parents seems to be the norm.
Boys X and Y sound entitled and need more time with their father so they can better appreciate what he is able to provide and might be doing the best he can.
'Significant and meaningful time' is the issue here and I'm interested to understand what you and your member would consider to be equal to 'significant and meaningful'. I know what the FLA says and the exact definitions; however, there seems to be some disparities in how litigants express their abilities to meet a 'standard of time' that would be seen to be in the child's best interest.
-
My take on it is that distance was an issue when the father's days off coincided with school days and yes if it were not 4 days but 5 (M-F) then it would have made a difference.
I'm not sure if your caravan analogy helps much as that is not ideal accomodation and from numerous cases there appears to be a consistent desire of the Court for the children to at least have their own room to sleep in.
The conflict between the parents becomes an issue often where the lack of will to try work things out often results in the Court being forced to pick one or the other or at least weigh all factors with that in mind.
In Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520; (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 Brown J at paragraph 26 described a meaningful relationship as one “which is important, significant and valuable to the child”, observing that the word meaningful is “a qualitative adjective, not strictly a quantitative one”. This is consistent with the definition of “significant and meaningful time” in s 65DAA of the Act.
The Full Court in McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405; [2009] FamCAFC 92 agreed with Brown J’s observations as to the nature of a meaningful relationship and considered three possible approaches to s 60CC(2)(a) at paragraph 118 preferring what it described as the prospective approach which requires the court to “consider and weigh the evidence at the date of the hearing and determine how, if it is in the child’s best interests, orders can be framed to ensure the particular child has a meaningful relationship with both parents”.
The Full Court also said at paragraph 119 that depending upon the factual circumstances of the particular case the “present relationship approach”, which involves making findings as to the nature of the child’s relationship with both of the child’s parents as at the date of the hearing, findings which are ultimately reflected in the orders, may also be relevant.
-
