Guest viewing is limited

Judge indicating lack of agreement for CAO during CMH but scheduled first hearing anyway

E

equalprobability

New member
Member
Hey there,

As above, the judge showed dismay to my solicitor because the schedule in an existing parenting agreement is more or less being followed, despite the amount of conflict involved in defending it.

He indicated he was likely to not agree to issuing an order, but scheduled a first hearing regardless and requested I submit a position statement.

My interest in the order is due to ongoing influence from extended family and almost monthly conflict over care arrangements for my son, of which I currently enjoy 50% custody, but only informally.

There was a history of domestic abuse on both sides, but the application ticked [x] no to the domestic abuse box. I have written a draft position statement that alleges coercive control coming from the mother's extended family. Is there anything else I can do without completely burying the mother to push a judge towards issuing an order?

I just want some sense of safety around my time with my son, and subsequently the ability to plan for events without worrying about some explosion from the mother disrupting our life
 
If you are asking for what you already have there is a risk of invoking the No Order Principle. I see 2 options:

1) Ask for an order to live with you and spend time with ex.

2) Use the position statement to demonstrate how the informal arrangement has compromised child welfare (see Welfare Checklist) and argue for a lives with both order as a way to safeguard child welfare.

Details of your case may give other options, or even make my options inappropriate/useless. Hope the above will get conversation started.
 
Hi Resolute, thanks for your reply, point 2) is particularly valuable, I hadn't thought of using the welfare checklist like this. I'm going try to adjust my draft PS accordingly and may post it here afterwards. Thanks for your words
 
Here's my first draft:

I, X, X, of X, X years of age and father of X (1) STATES as follows:-

1. I make this statement pursuant to the Order of Judge X dated xxxxxx, to (whatever statement is for).

2. We are dedicated parents proud of each other’s contribution to X’ care, undertaking approximately equal share from birth, but suffering irreconcilable failure due to manipulative, coercive and controlling behaviour orchestrated by maternal extended family since pregnancy, and conflict regarding the degree to which it is necessary to establish a life for X free of that influence. Both parties have a history of prompt and extreme behavioural excursions when interacting, and frequently in X’ presence, such that communication on material issues are now conducted exclusively by email.

3. Attempts to establish stable care arrangements for X following separation in xxxxxx have repeatedly ended in periods of volatility, causing directly attributable financial loss exceeding approximately 3 times the cost of X’ future undergraduate education in the months of xxxxx – xxxxx alone, and further routine incidents during xxxxx– xxxxx, including on xxxxxx in broad daylight in X city centre while X was present that narrowly avoided intervention from members of the public. While the schedule in our agreement has largely survived conflict so far, the most recent dispute over Mother’s day weekend saw continuing escalation, including a threat to trigger a 30-day clause to renegotiate a schedule that took 2-3 months of continuous conflict and lost income to initially agree.

4. I believe the control structure dominating the mother so far into adulthood is unhealthy to an extent the distinction between consent and helpless acquiescence is regularly impossible to ascertain, and that few commitments can be reliably entered into that could not later become undone through coercion by a deeply enmeshed and emotionally manipulative family. Overwhelming distrust therefore exists, not just out of fear of dishonesty, but in the knowledge of genuine lack of capacity to independently make and reliably defend parenting decisions free of coercion, and that circumstances dictate little room for future improvement, for which I hold the deepest sympathy for X’ mother and worry daily about its impact on him regardless of my contribution to his development.

5. This application is brought knowing the source of volatility remains present in X’ life, that continuing attacks on the strength of his autonomy, emotional independence and paternal relationship by extended family are guaranteed with little hope of mitigation, and following a substantial grace period leading to xxxxx where I attempted to establish confidence in our ability to self-manage. I believe intervention is not only necessary now but would have been tremendously beneficial to X had it occurred sooner, that further delay risks obvious harm should X be exposed to further conflict, or reach an age where he becomes acutely aware of the nature of the conflict, distracts from far more urgent issues such as increasingly apparent signs of early speech developmental delay, and prevents meaningful planning of his development and home life including education arrangements.

6. That suggestion the no order principle applied only demonstrates the degree to which occlusion and misrepresentation of conflict and coercive control remain features of X’ care, even in this context, and I believe would not have been suggested had the extent of X’ existing exposure to emotional harm arising from that conflict been honestly communicated to the respondent’s solicitor. An order covering X’ care schedule will dramatically improve the stability of his home life, effectively reduce conflict, and support the ability for both parents to plan his development rather than constantly react to manage his survival. It would establish a reliable and orthodox authority in his life beyond the external parties who lack responsibility for and are not motivated by ensuring successful outcomes for him in later life, and offers improved agency to X’ mother in ensuring commitments that have been freely entered into are not unmade as a result of future coercion that is guaranteed to reassert at the first sign of inconvenience.

7. The degree to which X has already suffered permanent harm due to existing care arrangements must be emphasized. The severity of the conflict and the promptness of the interaction patterns between parents both before and following separation cannot be understated, and ignoring the indirect impact this has on our ability to care for X, on many occasions such as xxxxxx, months after our written understanding came into effect, he has been direct witness to it. Leaving his care arrangements as-is only promotes the likelihood of further such incidents, in addition to leaving his parental relationships vulnerable to compromise by those with no responsibility for him.

I believe that the facts in this my statement are true.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't see any identifying info in there, other than dates perhaps. But I'll delete it anyway, having read it. It is maybe a bit long and not quite the format for a position statement.
 
I am not sure you're helping your case here. What are you trying to achieve?

"The degree to which X has already suffered permanent harm due to existing care arrangements must be emphasized. The severity of the conflict and the promptness of the interaction patterns between parents both before and following separation cannot be understated,

You are basically saying that you're a bad parent and the 50/50 is bad for the child. The court won't be interested in your ex partner's family - just her and you. Making allegations without professional evidence just makes you look hostile towards the Mother.

Why is the case in court if there was already 50/50 informally, and who applied to court and for what please?

I've just edited out the dates.
 
> Why is the case in court if there was already 50/50 informally, and who applied to court and for what please?

Originally for a consent order to solidify the informal agreement, but the mother decided against it prior to court appearance after discussing with her solicitor, who invoked the no order principle. The judge already indicated he is leaning towards no order, however he still proceeded to a first hearing, and my solicitor's application to the court was barren of reason to put it mildly, and she appeared to enter more or less completely unprepared. I am the applicant. The concern is the clear instability of the existing agreement, and frequent occurrences of debate around issues (including core access) that are supposed to be in black & white

> You are basically saying that you're a bad parent and the 50/50 is bad for the child

I'm not sure how to approach encouraging the understanding the existing arrangement leaves plenty of room open for conflict, some of which has been visible to baby. We've had at least two in-person incidents in the past 6 months where conflict proceeded without warning over some issue that is already clearly addressed in the agreement. Most recently that escalated to threats to trigger a complete renegotation of the agreement, and this started by simply reminding mum I was offering to babysit voluntarily but baby was clearly on her time. I can't live or work like this, and it's a clear harbinger for what her behaviour will be like if I enter a new relationship.

My meta-concern is that her arm will be twisted repeatedly by a deeply hateful family until my relationship with baby is undermined in the long term. There hasn't been a father/uncle/brother/boyfriend/husband existent or on equal standing in 3 generations in this family, they literally have next to no meaningful relations with men, and I expect this experience will continue repeating in their treatment of me until it is decisively tied down
 
Last edited:
Understood but the court probably won’t be interested in her family.

Could you afford representation?

I would focus your position statement on the benefits of a defined order for the children, as Resolute says. I wouldnt ask for residency or they will just see you as hostile to the ex. If you highlight all the trauma for the kids with the informal arrangement they are more likely to give sole residency to the Mother and minimal time with you - to keep the kids out of conflict.

So just argue why a defined 50/50 order would benefit the kids.

Defined means all dates are set in stone - term time and holidays - and both parents have to comply with those dates - no need for arguing over dates and arrangements. Additional clauses can cover who keeps the passport, when it’s to be given to the other parent (eg 21 days before a booked holiday) and various recitals setting out what is to happen over medical issues or even clothes.

If you message me I can help you work on it - I think you need to set out exactly what you want in an order at the end of it.
 
As you are at an early stage it might be an idea to make a subject access request to agencies that have been involved with the child. They may have evidence that will help your case. It can be difficult to extract anything after proceedings get into full swing.
 
SARs already previously complete to social services, police, hospital and doctor

Not much except the social services file that didn't help much with mum. It certainly helps with social services, but there only so many court fights you can engage with at the same time ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top