[sue40]

I had an appeal hearing yesterday & I am told it will take anything upto 6 months at the moment to get the judgement back.

I had an incompetent lawyer who didn't prepare for trial. I fired them after the initial 3 days of the original trial proceedings. Unfortunately it has left me in a position where alot of the arguments can now not be put forward. 

The children and I put up with arson attacks, i was publicly assaulted twice, cars vandalised, harrassment. theft, the children were abducted at one point and my oldest alienated (although she has since recovered). 

Beth, my 5 yr old, ended up in a residency reversal in october last year - to the people responsible for what ive just listed - although they have never been charged with anything.. 

She is now frequently ill, persistently suffering from bruising, has her communication with me constantly sabotaged, and is desperately missing all her family members who she has been with all her life until these current orders under appeal & often demonstrates violent refusals to return to her fathers (we have changeovers through a contact centre). 

I have tried a new application & it was dismissed. I have filed 2 contravention applications - one for the school holidays with me that she didn't get - & the same bias judge dismissed it - & it had been her own order & his blatant contravention. 

The 2nd contravention had some 18 counts - the judge dismissed all but 4 because she said they weren't worded well enough (& ordered i pay $7k of his costs for the priviledge of that little gem). 

There are 4 counts left to be heard next month, none of which are major enough to bring the residency into question..

[admin]

(06-Aug-2015, 09:20 PM)sue40 Wrote: I had an appeal hearing yesterday & I am told it will take anything upto 6 months at the moment to get the judgement back.

There are 4 counts left to be heard next month, none of which are major enough to bring the residency into question..

Sue,

Is there any independent  confirmation of your allegation above?

They can be considered quite serious allegations, but unless you have some material proof or independent verification, then it will not necessarily get the Court's sympathy.

Was a family report ordered? 

Are there any police reports?

And thirdly, did you prepare the affidavits, or was it left solely to your lawyer?

[ErikG]

(06-Aug-2015, 09:20 PM)sue40 Wrote: The 2nd contravention had some 18 counts - the judge dismissed all but 4 because she said they weren't worded well enough (& ordered i pay $7k of his costs for the priviledge of that little gem). 

There are 4 counts left to be heard next month, none of which are major enough to bring the residency into question..

Sue,

 
When judicial officers are exposed to allegations of extreme behaviour by one parent against the other, they are typically in a legal dilemma which they address individually, depending on their own philosophies.
 
Judges have to consider a legal standard called “unacceptable risk” on the one hand, which if extrapolated basically states that the more extreme the allegations, the lower the standard of proof required to limit contact of the accused with the child.
 
However, on a more intuitive approach, the more outlandish the allegation, the more likely the judge is not to believe the accuser.
 
So, some judges play it safe and suggest that if an allegation is serious enough, even without proof, some form of action should be taken to protect the children, just in case.
 
Whilst others refuse to ‘award’ what they see as unreliable or false allegations, because they see that as even a worse form of abuse.
 
I suspect the judge in your matter falls into the latter group, and perhaps your evidence was not believed.
 
As such, you may have to re-look at your evidence and ask yourself the question as to why you were not believed. Only then can you determine the best way forward.

[sue40]

(07-Aug-2015, 12:30 PM)ErikG Wrote:

(06-Aug-2015, 09:20 PM)sue40 Wrote: The 2nd contravention had some 18 counts - the judge dismissed all but 4 because she said they weren't worded well enough (& ordered i pay $7k of his costs for the priviledge of that little gem). 

There are 4 counts left to be heard next month, none of which are major enough to bring the residency into question..

Sue,

 
When judicial officers are exposed to allegations of extreme behaviour by one parent against the other, they are typically in a legal dilemma which they address individually, depending on their own philosophies.
 
Judges have to consider a legal standard called “unacceptable risk” on the one hand, which if extrapolated basically states that the more extreme the allegations, the lower the standard of proof required to limit contact of the accused with the child.
 
However, on a more intuitive approach, the more outlandish the allegation, the more likely the judge is not to believe the accuser.
 
So, some judges play it safe and suggest that if an allegation is serious enough, even without proof, some form of action should be taken to protect the children, just in case.
 
Whilst others refuse to ‘award’ what they see as unreliable or false allegations, because they see that as even a worse form of abuse.
 
I suspect the judge in your matter falls into the latter group, and perhaps your evidence was not believed.
 
As such, you may have to re-look at your evidence and ask yourself the question as to why you were not believed. Only then can you determine the best way forward.

The ICL in this case deliberately withheld several QPS documents and other subpoena information which substantiated my position. This was also withheld from the psychiatric assessments the father & I had & so the psych said I only had a 'perceived sense of injustice' & an 'external locus of blame'. as there was no evidence before her to substantiate what I was saying. The ICL then used this report, based on her manipulated evidence (& a letter of instruction to the psych where she expressed her personal opinions - after the psych being personally chosen by the ICL) to support her 'pro-father' position.
The Father is the one full of false allegations & he has been given custody, even though hes had little to do with the child during her life & was party to her abduction when she was 12 months old, which in itself created problems.

I filed an application prior to trial seeking the sealing of the report & the dismissal of the ICL, but unfortunately I went on to hire what ended up being incompetent legal representation, who withdrew that application at the commencement of trial, & who had not adequately prepared for trial - including accessing the existing file documents & subpoena evidence so they did not list previous affidavits to be relied upon & made no objections or submissions regarding the subpoena evidence & the ICL's sharing of those documents with other parties, the ICL's lack of serving our side with notice of the subpoenas - denying me my right to object to them & their broad nature, & the omission of relevant documents which related to events raised at trial.

The whole thing is like some weird nightmare that I wouldn't believe if I wasn't experiencing it myself.

My daughter is now constantly crying & pleading to come home. Is presenting with bruising & ill health on a regular basis, at times becomes highly hysterical at changeovers as soon as the staff mention her father has arrived & its time to leave (which coincides with bruising) - even the staff at the centre have contactedthe ICL, but the ICL simply dismisses the concerns.

My daughter is verbally abused during her phone calls with me, and the father & his wife are clearly coaching & alienating her - I have recorded the phone conversations in a form acceptable under the telecommunications act, but no matter what I do I cant seem to get them before a judge at the moment

add you reply here...

[ErikG]

One of the biggest abuses of the system I have repeatedly witnessed occurs when the ICL volunteers to help find, or otherwise suggests, a  psychologist of their choice to write the family report.

 
There is typically only one reason when an ICL tries to control which psychologist writes the report, and that’s because they want to control the narrative of the case.
 
Judges are often clued up to this, but not always. If you can’t get to nominate your own psychologist, you should never accept the ICL nominating their preference, because more often than not they will work in collusion, whether its at a conscious level or sub-conscious, which is precisely what is not supposed to happen.

[knoxfamilylaw]

How did it go Sue?

[Dr Travis Gee]

(07-Aug-2015, 02:00 PM)ErikG Wrote: One of the biggest abuses of the system I have repeatedly witnessed occurs when the ICL volunteers to help find, or otherwise suggests, a  psychologist of their choice to write the family report.

 
There is typically only one reason when an ICL tries to control which psychologist writes the report, and that’s because they want to control the narrative of the case.
 
Judges are often clued up to this, but not always. If you can’t get to nominate your own psychologist, you should never accept the ICL nominating their preference, because more often than not they will work in collusion, whether its at a conscious level or sub-conscious, which is precisely what is not supposed to happen.

This is very true. ICL's have been known to withhold one side's evidence from the report writer to control the narrative. A self-representing litigant won't be likely to know of this trick, and the counter to it lies in the expert witness guidelines about 'making all necessary inquiries.' If the report writer is told, on interview, of the existence of all relevant documents, and seems to be unaware of them, they can be questioned later on cross-examination as to why they failed to make inquiries about filed documents that they had not been provided. This tactic should go towards undermining a biased report, but requires having your wits about you at interview time with the reporter, making sure they are aware of the bits of paper.

It's not always just the ICL that's involved in something shady. I know of a reporter who was pressured by a clinic director, at the request of Child Safety, to remove positive statements about someone CS didn't like, who on testing had evinced no psychopathology. This was done, under protest, but the reporter ensured that *all* versions of the report were on the subpoenaed file, so the self-represented parent would be able to ask why the original report was tampered with. This again is a question that can be asked of the expert - 'Was this report modified after the initial version was provided?' Whether they were provided depends on whether they were kept in the first place, and whether your subpoena was broad enough to capture them.

Do tell us how things went!