Mother's non-compliance with an order about timing & limits of Facetime calls

[lunico93x]

The short of the situation is: Mother's doing the usual, haven't seen my 3yo daughter since April, the FHDRA was in November and CAFCASS recommended a FFH because of both parents' allegations (hers are the standard bucket list, mine are about clear and real emotional harm coming to the child). I am self-representing but have a very good barrister for hearings on a direct access basis.

One of the things ordered at the FHDRA was the ten-minute limit she and her family have placed on my child's weekly Facetime calls to me should be lifted. It was argued that this was coercive and not in the child's interest, judge accepted. Previously they'd put a 10-minute timer on her iPad, which she told me about. Judge specifically ordered:

"The Father shall have video call contact with the Child once per week for up to 1 hour, with the contact and duration to be led by the Child."

Today's call was on time, and I was happily able to get the child's older siblings on the call (she has also been prevented from seeing them for 8+ months). It was going very well, she was so happy to talk to her sisters (technically half-sisters).

Then at 10m26s, a countdown timer goes off on the phone of the relative who was in the room with her. At this point her demeanour changed very clearly, and she starts saying things like "That's all now" etc., and basically shut down. Her two sisters clearly noticed this and asked her what she meant, and after the call expressed shock at what was very obviously going on.

There's a directions hearing pre-FFH in February. My question is, do I attempt to raise an enforcement application because of this breach, or do I raise it in February? The call was recorded and it's very obvious. Applying for enforcement now may not be handled by February but it would put it on record that something very wrong is going on, that the mother is clearly not adhering to court orders, and this would overall be beneficial to my side of the proceedings.

Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.

 

[Peanut 21]

with the contact and duration to be led by the Child."

This pisses me off. Led by the child!! What the child who will be sat with the mother who is manipulating them and likely distracting them in the background. No child has the cognitive ability or strength to defy their mother.
I'm sick of courts putting children in this position

 

[Ash]

Exactly I was thinking that "with the contact and duration to be led by the Child." "Up to an hour" is also too evasive as 10 minutes is "up to an hour"!

But you have evidence that the ex is abusing the order. Personally I wouldn't enforce it but would save it for your next position statement, Mainly becsuse it's very difficult to enforce phone calls altogether - they are too easily manipulated.

 

[lunico93x]

Exactly I was thinking that "with the contact and duration to be led by the Child." "Up to an hour" is also too evasive as 10 minutes is "up to an hour"!

But you have evidence that the ex is abusing the order. Personally I wouldn't enforce it but would save it for your next position statement, Mainly becsuse it's very difficult to enforce phone calls altogether - they are too easily manipulated.

True. It's also time for Scott Schedules so I can add it in as an example of emotional abuse. You'd have thought the ex and her bat-s*it mother would have realised this was the time to be careful.

 

[Peanut 21]

True. It's also time for Scott Schedules so I can add it in as an example of emotional abuse. You'd have thought the ex and her bat-s*it mother would have realised this was the time to be careful.

They don't care about court orders

 

[Ash]

I think most Mothers follow court orders mostly and are intimidated by what might happen if they don't. There are some who think they are above the law. But can get their come uppance.

 

[Peanut 21]

I think most Mothers follow court orders mostly and are intimidated by what might happen if they don't. There are some who think they are above the law. But can get their come uppance.

I was on about the OPs ex and her mother. These types don't give a second thought to court orders. They don't think they apply to them. These are the difficult people to deal with.

 

[Ash]

Sorry, misunderstood.

 

[lunico93x]

This gets worse today. Call started on time but received texts 10 minutes before stating I was not to add child's siblings to the call. Child seemed miserable. I added the siblings and the ex mother-in-law (a complete cow and I hope she sees this) just ended the call, not the child (child is 3 and loves their siblings). MIL then messages me saying she'll do the call again but under no circumstances am I to add siblings.

Bear in mind court order states content and length of phone contact is to be led by the child.

Chatted a bit and asked child if last time they spoke to siblings it made them happy. They lit up at the suggestion so I just added the siblings again. MIL cut the call again. Followed by various messages of diatribe.

This woman is a dictatorial narcissist. And this is clearly abusive of the child, not only preventing contact with the siblings but creating a coercive and negative environment around our calls.

 

[Ash]

Ok you need to try and avoid keeping the child out of conflict of this, so for now I'd suggest agreeing that siblings won't be present "on this occasion" and this can be discussed later. It's something you'll need to make a note of for court later. If she's refusing to allow calls if siblings are there, then just accept that for now and raise it at the next hearing. The "led by child bit" is unfair on the child who has no say in anything and it's terrible when orders like that are made.

 

[lunico93x]

Ok you need to try and avoid keeping the child out of conflict of this, so for now I'd suggest agreeing that siblings won't be present "on this occasion" and this can be discussed later. It's something you'll need to make a note of for court later. If she's refusing to allow calls if siblings are there, then just accept that for now and raise it at the next hearing. The "led by child bit" is unfair on the child who has no say in anything and it's terrible when orders like that are made.

Yep.

 

[Chi22]

Hi.

There is a legal responsibility on the resident parent to promote contact. It is not a stretch to say that that is the case even if contact is indirect.

I think you need to make a very clear point about this at your Fact Finding Hearing and in your Scott Schedule in relation to emotional harm: It is harmful not to promote contact and to limit that contact unnecessarily.

I think you should avoid the word 'abuse'.

This duty is referred to in a judgement by McFarlane and others and part of his referring to it is here:

1. Where parental responsibility is shared by a child's parents, the statute is plain (CA 1989, s 3) that each of those parents, and both of them, share 'duties' and 'responsibilities' in relation to the child, as well as 'rights … powers … and authority'. Where all are agreed, as in the present case, that it is in the best interests of a child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, the courts are entitled to look to each parent to use their best endeavours to deliver what their child needs, hard or burdensome or downright tough that may be. The statute places the primary responsibility for delivering a good outcome for a child upon each of his or her parents, rather than upon the courts or some other agency."

At some point it may be the case that your ex pulls the 'children don't want to see you play' and this judgement is central in stating that a child not wishing to see the non-resident parent is not a reason for contact not to take place.

Re W (Direct Contact' 2013

Full document here:

W (Children), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 999 (24 July 2012)

And if these call lengths are logged you need to screenshot all of them to a side of A4 and file in evidence. It would be with you supporting that with a brief line on how each call ended, as you do above.

 

[Peanut 21]

MIL cut the call again.

Does it say any where on the order about ex mil involvement? If so you could mention next time in court that this is nothing to do with the ex mil.