[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...