Went to pick little one up two weeks ago from school as per court order and ex had picked her up already. Should have had her two weeks before that, but ex said she wouldn’t hand her over as she still had chickenpox. Got this today. Ridiculous. I really need to oust the current social worker as she’s really corrupt. Have had transcripts of the judgement and SW’s evidence authorised by the judge (at a cost of £1200). Will be progressing with these anyway as I need to send to Social Work England. This behaviour of mother’s is openly supported by the current social worker.
Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 2 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
Another breach…
- Thread starter NorthenMonk
- Start date
So if the chickenpox is gone, the only reason she is not following the order is she says the child doesn't want to come? What does the social worker have to say about it?
Be careful in your communications about this as she may be trying to set you up to get angry and then use that against you.
What is the arrangement? That you go to the library for collection? If so then go and if the ex doesn't turn up you text her and say you are waiting at the collection point for your daughter and request she brings your daughter, as per the court order. Presumably you'll get a similar response about daughter not wanting to come.
Really then you should enforce the order. But what does the order say? Didn't you say there was a bit of a loophole clause?
Be careful in your communications about this as she may be trying to set you up to get angry and then use that against you.
What is the arrangement? That you go to the library for collection? If so then go and if the ex doesn't turn up you text her and say you are waiting at the collection point for your daughter and request she brings your daughter, as per the court order. Presumably you'll get a similar response about daughter not wanting to come.
Really then you should enforce the order. But what does the order say? Didn't you say there was a bit of a loophole clause?