Listen to me, I’m telling you stuff.

Another day, another visit to facebook legal.

Short explanation moment.

When parents separate they usually come to agree upon a parenting plan. Be it by mutual consent, mediation or by court order. The point of a parenting plan is to ensure that the best interests of the child/children are met.

It is not a way of one parent trying to ‘win’ over the other.

A major way of ensuring that the interests of the child are met is that the vast majority of parenting plans specify that co-parenting is included. Co-parenting describes a parenting situation where two parents work together to raise a child even though they are not living together.

Co-parenting often has nothing to do with where the child resides, or how often each parent gets to see the child.

Explanation over…

Here we have an example of a person complaining to facebook legal that they can’t differentiate co-parenting from residency. No surprise that our anna also cannot differentiate between the two.

So our anna wades in:

If you have no court orders you both can basically do what you like. I did not need permission to enrol my kids into school, only I did. As I pay the Fees. Same with Doctors or what ever else.

I think they are bullshitting you. A counsellor tried to tell me once I need the permission of their Dad…I asked them to show me the legislation that required that…They couldn’t. Do the same.

So lets have a quick look at the ‘advice’ that our anna has given, since it seems to set off some alarm bells with us.

If you have no court orders you both can basically do what you like.

Our anna is correct about this, but it does highlight the point we alluded to earlier about anna being more interested in the win, than the child.

I did not need permission to enrol my kids into school, only I did. As I pay the Fees.

The fact that our anna claims to pay the school fees has nothing to do with parenting plans, or co-parenting. Just another example of our anna’s fixation on money. Also, by our calculations our anna’s eldest child turned 6 the year she separated from her ex-partner, as such the child should have already been in school.

Same with Doctors or what ever else.

Hang on, didn’t our anna complain about not being informed about her eldest attending hospital? Our anna’s own words are very clear that their existing orders state that she is to be informed if there is a medical emergency. So anna is claiming that she can do what she likes, but her ex-partner is bound by a court ordered parenting plan? Why does Pinocchio spring to mind?

https://caboolturesannastancombe.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/whos-kids-have-never-been-to-the-doctors/

I think they are bullshitting you. A counsellor tried to tell me once I need the permission of their Dad…I asked them to show me the legislation that required that…They couldn’t. Do the same.

Again we are calling our anna out on this one. Telling people to do something to demonstrate that they are only interested in the win, and not the best interests of their children. Way to get the courts on side?

What we are dubious about is that any councillor would not be aware of Section 61C of the Family Law Act 1975.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2011C00537/Html

 

anna1banna1c

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s