The word primary carer has been banded around recently and changes are happening in family law. And so today's episode, we're going to be talking about what is a primary carer? Why does it matter? How can you prove it? And what's been changing in family court in Australia? Welcome, Mum. Hello, Laura. Hello, everyone. Now, before we get started, Mum is not your lawyer. I am not a lawyer. And we are just talking about the topic of primary carer. Also, this is based on Australian information. However, we are going to be talking about how you can prove being a primary carer. And this may help you in a matter what country you're in. And it also may help you if, depending on your divorce personality type to know what to expect when dealing with this issue, doesn't matter what country you're in because people are the same everywhere. But before we get started, just a reminder, there may be discussions of family violence. So if you feel triggered by that, please call 131114 Lifeline. And if you are experiencing family violence, you call 1-800-RESPECT and get support. All right, let's get to our jingle. Let's get started. Hello, I'm Laura, a divorce mother of three. And I'm here with my mother, Lynette Galvin, with 35 years experience of family law. You're listening to the divorce course podcasts. Through our candid discussions, we hope to help you through your divorce or de facto separation. We will be answering the most commonly asked questions and covering the stages and steps that you will face on your way to freed. Now, Mum, before we get started, I just want to say to everyone who's listening, don't hate us, we are just saying what's going on. I know there's, when it comes to custody and issues of this nature, people can get very passionate and very angry and very upset. And I understand that because kids are your world. So we're not doing this to upset anyone. We're doing this to make it clearer and easier for you to see. So for those people who think the system's broken or the rules are wrong or whatever it is, that's not our fault. What we're saying is this is the information. So that you at least have some clarity in what you're going to be moving forwards with. And again, like we said, please go see a lawyer. So Mum, let's just get started right off the talking. What is primary care? So primary care is a term used in relation to children. And I looked up a few definitions this morning before we came on to see what other people's take on primary care is. And unsurprisingly, nearly all of it is related to law. And nearly all of the law is related to family law. So primary care is normally a retrospective look. A look at who has or is spending the most time with the child. And some definitions expand beyond that to talk about who's making the decisions for the child on a day to day basis. Right. So it's basically the person that's doing all the kid stuff. Yeah, really. And in a case where you've got to stay at home parent, they will be the primary care almost always. OK, well, that's one of my questions. Is it always if there's the breadwinner and then the other person then the other person is the primary care? Yes. Or are there situations where it can be the breadwinner and that can also be the primary care. I think there are some times where mothers work. Let's face it, primary care for little kids is generally the mother. And I don't feel too sexist in talking about that because the cases talk about that as well. So if a family has divided their labor up so that one stays home with the kids, one goes to work, then the person staying home with the kids is the primary care out. Just by virtue of the number of hours in a day. So it's not gender bias. No, it's just literally down to hours and time spent with the kid. And why? Well, so the court has a more expanded definition for that. But why it matters is that since the repeal of the old laws and the introduction of the new laws last year, the question of the status quo or the best interest of the children has raised again. And the court will on an interim basis, this is important, where they haven't got time to go into cross examination and detailed examination of all the facts. They won't, I believe, go back to how they used to go for interim hearings. And they'd say, what is the status quo? In other words, what's happening now? Are the children settled there? Then we're not going to change that. We're not going to mess with that. All right. So before people get nervous, an interim basis means it's not the end decision. That's right. While you guys are sorting it out, mum's saying that the court may, if they did have to make a decision, would try and just keep it as it is. So whatever's happening currently, that the court's more likely to, for the kids' best interest to leave it as it is until they've actually looked at the case and examined all the things at a final trial, is that right? Yeah, that's right. Because in the old law, where 50/50 was kind of the, I don't know, kind of the end point, I guess most people were aiming for equal shared parental responsibility equal time with the parents. The courts were, for a while, just going, yes, but on an interim basis on these early court things where we haven't got time to explore, we're just going to leave everything as it is for safety's sake, unless there's a real reason to change it and leave the kids where they are until we get to final hearing. And that was a problem because final hearings were, sometimes a few years away. And by the time you got to trial, the status quo that was existing in an interim audit was established and it really wasn't really worth fighting sometimes. But now, good case, GWD, ES, case is no longer good law. A case that it's at the window. So now the court, because in that case, they said you've got to make those decisions on an interim basis and you've got to look at 50/50 on an interim basis, more or less. Now the court doesn't look at that. They don't have to decide an interim hearing based on percentage of time. They are going to go back, I believe, and so do a lot of academics, believe, back to the old situation, where those go, "Look, guys, before you got in here, fighting over who does what and who did it, what did you arrange? How were things before? What are things now?" And now the kids are okay. Oh, yeah, they're doing okay at school. We aren't the leave, the status quo. We're going to leave it as it is in case we do more harm than good. And then what they're doing is relying on the arrangement that the parents had come to of their own volition. And they leave it like that until final trial when they get time to look at everything to a Microsoft. So are you saying primary care issue only matters for interim? Or is it also matters now for final hearing? I think it matters for final as well because the test for the children now is the best interests of the children. Okay, and so there's always going to be a little bit of a kind of stickiness that are in wanting to change an arrangement that the kids have been in for something else. So they only change only, I mean, not only. But the court still has to look at everything when they get to a final hearing. And even if on an interim basis, that arrangement was not by consent that it was coerced on someone, they're looking to all of that as well. But okay, let's have a look then 'cause we kind of glossed over the fact that it used to be 50/50 and the right for the child to have equal access to both parents. So that's kind of changed now. It hasn't changed, it's gone. Okay, it's gone. So can you just explain what it was and what's the difference, what's the change? And we've got an episode if you'd like to go listen to it you can, but just so that people can understand why primary care matters now, yeah. Okay, so under the old legislation, if I can remember it correctly, the court had primary considerations and secondary considerations. And the primary considerations were the child being safe psychologically emotionally and physically. And secondly, it was the right of the child to be loved by and spend time with both parents, right? And then into the secondary considerations, it talked about that the court had to consider if the child, if they were ordering joint parental responsibility, then they had to look at the time that the child spent with the other parent and they got to go, they look at equal shared time first and then they look at substantial and significant time and that was a whole case thing about that weekend, school days, et cetera. And then, and had to explain themselves, so they actually had a starting point of 50/50 and the judge had to explain themselves down from there. So as. - All right, so it was 50/50, it was pretty much, it pretty much every judge, if they weren't gonna do 50/50, they had to explain why and give a really good reason why and if it was way less than 50/50, they had to give a really good reason why. - So that changed. - Yeah, so it's not that. - No, that's gone, that's gone. Now the only consideration, the main one, is the best interest of the children and then section 60 CC goes down to explain how the court would look at the best interests of the children and for they changed the law back in 2016 to this 50/50 thing, it used to say this, it used to say the best interests of the children, which is why I'm confident in going back to old cases and look at them because we are kind of back to the future with that. - So it's pretty much, it's a no-brainer. I mean, and again, we're talking about court and a lot of people aren't going to go to court. A lot of people are gonna negotiate this themselves or go through mediation and negotiate. The so-judge isn't gonna decide this for you, but any loving parents would wanna do what was the best interest for the children, Bye.
you know, it is hard, I guess, for parents to put that lens on sometimes because they desperately just want to see it as fair for them to have time with their kids as much as the other person has time with their kids. And I guess because they love them so much, but they haven't turned their mind to the fact that it's is it actually better for their child to be going from house to house or is it better for them to be settled in one place and then visiting spending time with the other parent when it's you know appropriate and when it's good. And I guess that's the sticking point that pretty much most custody cases that end up in court are about really isn't it? It is. It is. And I accept people are coming from a place of love in most cases, but a lot of those people don't end up fighting in the court. They kind of make a decision for the best interests of the child. I think you said most people come from a place of love so let's just touch on that because I want to talk about the four personality types and why primary care and matters and how this works and that because realistically manipulative and controlling is the one that ends up in the courts and they're the ones that aren't coming from a place of love. That's the feeling I've been getting from all the messages that we read and the people that we deal with. Is that what you see? Oh, it's definitely what I see. And I think that's the ill that the new legislation is trying to cure from the old cases because on an interim basis a very clever person manipulative controlling person. They could see that and it's not just me saying this by the way, these are submissions to the law reform commission. They said that a lot of people who are manipulative and controlling are wanting more time so that it would reflect in them getting more property settlement or they wanted more time so they paid less child support. So financially motivated is what the court has said. And you're missing one. Hey, I'm hurting people do it to her just to her to they may have so no interest whatsoever in the children ever and then all of a sudden they got they want it 50 50 and they're willing to fight to the death for it and quite. Yes, so I was quoting us quoting one study that went into the family law reform commission, but I think that the government of the legislation acknowledges that Laura because I did see so much of that if they know that your Achilles heel is the children, right? If the thing that's most important to and fathers and mothers, if that's the most important thing to you, then a person who isn't afraid to hurt the kids in their effort to hurt you may may put their hand up and ask for something that's completely different to what's happened before and and if they continue to manipulate the kids when they're in their care, this was causing great harm and it's funny, Laura, remember we looked at the attorney general's statement when the new legislation came out last year. Yes, yes. And essentially they were saying, oh, we never meant that we never meant that 50 50 was the starting point but the judges and then the lawyers thought it meant that so and I'm sure I bet there's people listening to us today where the lawyer has said to them, look, there's no point arguing anything other than 50 50 because you won't get it and we all know people who've been told that and so they came in. So realistically, the catch and the problem with it's great that they're changing the law. It's great that they're trying to take away this entitlement that all parents seem to have that they can have 50 50 with their children if they go to court but it's unfortunate because a lot of people don't go to court, a lot of people go to mediation with not a legal mediator. So they don't know what they're right and what they're entitled to and so they may get pressured into agreeing to something that isn't in the children's best interests. So for amicable mum though, if it's an amicable divorce, your friends, everything's fine and you've got kids, you could negotiate 50 50 if you thought that was the best interest for your kids. Yes and I don't think the lawyers or the courts see those people very often. They'll give 50 50 a try if they're amicable and both with the children's best interests at heart. Then I'd say if that wasn't working for the kids, they would make them a change. I mean the Institute of Family Studies has said that a lot of kids don't feel like they've got two homes which is what we all hoped they would feel. In fact, they feel like they've got no home because whichever house they go to, they've missed a week's worth of whatever's been going on and then they go back to their other home and they've missed a week's worth there. So it can, I think it can be quite detrimental to children because that's just a personal opinion that last bit. So if you are listening today and you're negotiating with your ex about being the primary care so asking for more time because it's the best interest of the children, how do you, so we're going to talk about how to prove it and how to negotiate that with your ex. What kind of things can you put across to be like, look if we went to court, this might be the outcome. So we're better off agreeing here. So what kind of things could you point to? I guess I could point to Kowling's case, COW, L-I-N-G and I didn't have the year of that, I think it's 1989, but it's the old case that talks about the status quo. I think you've got to be careful in a mediation. I think some mediators may not realise that one of the two parties is manipulative and controlling and they may take everything they say as reliable and inadvertently become a pressure on the other person who may be traumatised already from the relationship. So yeah, I think it's probably not answering your question directly. No, well let's just get to that. How do you prove that your primary care? Okay. How do you prove that? Okay, so for anyone listening who needs to prove it, I suggest that you have a look and see if you can find text messages, perhaps between you and your ex partner or you and other people arranging that someone to collect the kits from school, is your name there as the primary emergency contact for the kids for school? How many days have you taken off work or how often have you had the children at school? Who takes the kids to their doctor's appointments, dental appointments, you can list those things down, you can probably, you found their dentists, maybe you found the doctor. Put all those things down. With day care or after school care, they'll be signing and sign out books, so you can put it in there, you can get that as a copy of that as evidence of what's going on. So I'm trying to say the stuff you did every day, then if you've got anything in writing anywhere about it, that tends to support your case, then you can attach that because people try to change history, don't they? Well, that's right. That's why you have to prove it because how many times have we heard of people where they've gotten a letter from their ex's lawyer saying as our client was the primary care or blah, blah, blah, blah, and they're like, I'm sorry, what? And they've said, I've always done everything. I've always been, you know, and all of a sudden my ex is either pretending to be the primary care or actually has tried to muscle their way in to be the primary care straight after separation. So why are they doing that? What's their reason behind that? Well, although the family law act has changed and property settlement, well, property settlement will like us impact who the primary care is, but although we don't have to look at 50, 51st, the child support legislation has not changed and the court, the agency has a formula that they apply Australia-wide and it starts with the number of nights and days that you spend. So the percentage of care. And so sometimes that's a reason why they might try to rewrite history. Also they can then and they will keep records, right? We've got someone who's been disinterested in the children and then is suddenly trying to get into things and then they've got photos of the lunches they've made and pictures of them at the open days and all of that. And you're going, there's not done that for years, but I didn't really document it. So it is child support and property settlement up to now. So that's a sneaky thing you need to keep aware of. Now I've actually heard of one of our listeners, they like you said, hadn't thought about documenting that sort of stuff, but everyone always knew, it was like no brain of this person was the primary career and they had to get, I think they're hairdresser to write a statement saying that every appointment always had to be before pickup time and sometimes she would have to leave halfway through a hair appointment because the child was sick, there are ways you can get some proof of that if it's a hindsight thing and you have to look back, but it is a shock I think for people when their ex all of a sudden pretends to rewrite history. So you can prove it. So then who do you prove it to? Do you start arguing with your ex about it or do you show your ex's lawyer or do you prove it to the mediator, do you prove it to yourself or you save it all for court? Like who are you showing this proof to? I think you're saving it for court. If your ex suddenly steps up and starts doing things that she never did before for the kids, then I think there's a way of documenting it, but proof for the court that this is a new thing, right? And that is that you might send an email or text and it'll just say you know the dental appointment, this is the address and this is I get the 15 minutes earlier at it, just kind of own it again and give them instructions for things, but if you start to
push back and try to reclaim your role as primary care. It's going to be really confusing for the kids. The more distant the other parent used to be, the more excited they are about the sudden attention and you really can't win on this. If you fight with your ex, it damages the children. So you're going to have to just document it for court. And one of the ways I think I've heard you say in past and we should do just a whole episode on chronologies, full stop. But our chronology is a timeline of, this is how it used to be. This is what pick up, look, look, look, look, and on this date we separated. And this is how it changed drastically and against my wishes. So you could kind of document when that's changed or child support contacted my ex about payments. And then the next day my ex wanted more time. Like you can put that all into a knowledge for the court to see and I have heard of members and listeners who had the court notice this kind of behavior and point out they're nasty, you know, behavior. So it can protect you from that. But when once you've got all your proof, you've got it all, you've got your chronologies, you've got your documentation of your Kindie pick up, some whatever. Do you, like I said, do you show it to your ex or do you show it to their ex's lawyer? Like if you got that letter saying my ex was the prime, your ex, sorry, my client was the primary care. So therefore we are suggesting, you know, you have them every second weekend. Do you write a letter back showing them all the ex's lawyer or the information or do you save it for mediation? Yes. So I think you immediately should write back into that's not the case. This is new from your ex, from your client. I've not, this hasn't been the situation. It's a judgment call whether anything that you've got is actually discoverable and needs to be disclosed to the other side because I've never seen a case where every single text message between the parties has been, you know, required in evidence. However, if you don't show it recently early on, then other side may get involved and their lawyer won't challenge them on it. So there's that chronology might be helpful, even though you've prepared it in advance of court proceedings, a chronology can be really helpful, particularly if you can slot things in. So when I was at the bar, that was the first thing you do. You get a big fat brief and the first thing you do is get everything in time order, even if it's dates or even if there's two things happen on a date, put them in the time order and suddenly the picture becomes very clear. So you've got to try and present it so that everybody gets it, including your own lawyer, because I do see some people whose lawyers don't believe them, so you've got to get your lawyer on board, their lawyer on board and hopefully then it won't go to court because once their lawyer figures it out, they'll be like, "Oh, okay, well, mate, you're barking up the wrong tree and you're going to be wasting money." Now, let's go to a listener question. If you're separated or about to be and you need to get everything finalised and sorted but you don't know what to do next or you're looking for a way to do your own divorce and settlement without spending thousands of dollars on lawyer, then you already know what you need to do and that is to sign up and become a member of the DIY divorce blueprint and power, educate and equip yourself with the legal know-how and the tools you need to get divorced or de facto separated and finally set up. Work through this course at your own pace without feeling confused, lost, scared or overwhelmed of all the family law legal jargon and process it. Let us walk with you through this journey and show you a better one. Now, let's go to a listener question. Okay, obviously. Obviously, you have a change. This is a lot of detail so that this isn't a discoverable. But we've got this question recently and if you'd like to send us a question, we may or may not answer it based on what topic we're doing. Oh, it's just search through and look for the topic. You can email us at the divorce course
[email protected] if you want to send us in a question. But this was like, "Hi, team, Fessley. I love your podcast episodes. They're hugely helpful. Thank you." I'm filling the gap between my lawyer and psychologist during the hardest most stressful time of my life. I'm already further along in the journey than a lot of the topics that are covered. But I'm separated. I attempted mediation which resulted in no agreement and a section 60i certificate being issued. I'm now at the stage of lawyer letters being exchanged between myself and a high conflict, extremely manipulative and controlling ex partner whose primary goal is to win and gain support from external friends. My ex partner has now filed paperwork to take me to court and the main issue being parenting plan for my children demanding 5050 custody, which is not in their best interests. I've been their primary care all their lives and family violence is a factor. You know, I heard from someone the other day that some lawyers don't realise the law has changed. I think the old lawyers like me, who were around before the law changed in 2016, we, it was pretty comfortable to slip on the old cases and go back to that way. But a lot of the younger new lawyers may not quite understand the impact of this. So for you, for that listener, I don't think 5050 is going to get you, get them anywhere. It always seemed to be based on what was fear for the parents, not for the kids, in my mind. So the cases that I've read lately, the ones coming through 5050, it just, it may be considered or it may not. The judge won't get appealed on it if they don't. What the court is going to look at on an infirm, if you've got an interim basis, the court's going to look at the best interests of the children and one of the ways that they're going to do that is to look at what situation, what the situation was as the kids in the before separation and trying to minimise the impact of the separation on the kids by keeping those arrangements pretty well. So the question is whether the children are in a settled environment or you know, an settled arrangement and the mention of family violence as well. Yeah, that's right. That's right. It is. It's the 5050. It's the first thing the court looks at for children is whether there's been family violence. If there has been family violence, you need to document that listener and put those down in date time, whatever you can think of and do some research, what is family violence because often we don't know. So look at that purple book that the Gold Coast is put up. I'll pop that in the show. Yes, the purple book. Yeah. And so if a person is violent, then are they capable of providing for the emotional and psychological welfare of the children, let alone the physical welfare of the children. So I would raise the family violence for the emotional and psychological welfare and I would raise that she's been primary care. Absolutely. Really a lot easier to prove if you've been the stay-home mummers were said or stayed home dad. But yeah, it's about, there's a lot about attachment theory for children. So sometimes these questions are answered more readily if the children are little compared to if they're 15 or 14. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, hopefully that helps you feel a little less stress there. Okay. This question, loving your podcast, they've put me at moreities and understanding the law a bit better and in the process. My husband has asked for separation and we're sustaining mediation this week with our initial intake appointment. He wants 50/50 with the kids, which his mum would be doing most of the work because he's not available to do it. One of our children has a disability and I'm the career and have attended well over 500 hours of therapy over the past couple of years. My husband has only done about three hours. I've only been able to return to work because some of my work because I guess all the therapy would it be easy enough for me to advocate to have more custody of the kids, similar to our usual arrangement that we had during the marriage? Absolutely. Too right. Certainly on an interim basis and certainly in your mediation. That was the division of labor that you agreed upon during the marriage. Then of course. And hopefully you'll be able to establish that 500 hours. My gosh. Do you know what? It's 500 hours, Lord, depending on where you live. That's travel time comes on top of that parking. What about when people have their parents pick up the care? If they go, yes, I want 50/50, but they don't do any of the caring and it's a grand parent or a nanny. And you just, I know a lot of people write in, they get really upset about it because they feel like it's just like they're saying, well, this child is mine now. You can't see this child for this amount of time, but I'm also not going to see the child and I'm just going to get a babysitter. Yeah. What does the court think about that? In the past, each case turned on its evidence, right? On its facts because grandparents are important and it may be that's an arrangement that suits the child and it may have been in place before. We used to say sometimes people were just taking the child off one parent to deprive the parent of their child. I think the court's more aware now of the benefit to children of the wider family group. And if they spend the majority of their time with one parent, then they really have to be seeing the other parent in the other, the other parent's family in the other parent's time. And as that time is a bit shorter, then I think it's less going to upset the court that someone else is picking up the kids. What if it's not family? What if it's babysitter and nanny or a random? So the law changed gradually in case the when they brought in the 50/50 shed.
care and 50/50 is time. They had to take into account that in a given week a parent might not be able to collect the children or do something with the children. And so there have been cases where a friend even daycare after school care, both and after school care, where the court sees that as quite a reasonable thing. That's an arrangement that the parent has made when the child's in their care and you're not to interfere, but it does upset people because if you're going to take them to be for school care, why not drop them with me? Why not drop them? Why don't I pick them up? Because I live just up the road. But it's about perception of the children as well of the parent who is able to make arrangements for themselves. Those cases will turn on their facts. Now, I heard someone mention a while back some right of time or something where like if you can't look after the child instead of having it at somebody else or getting a nanny, you have to offer that time to the other parent. It's the first right of refusal. It's first right of refusal. I hate it. I hate it. But could you explain more? So, some people think it's a good idea sometimes to put this in the court order. That the children will live with this parent on these days and this parent on those, the other parent on those days. But if I, the parent finds they're unable to care for them on those days, then they will call on the other parent first to take the kids. Oh, you know, I'm taking mum to the hospital. Little Johnny needs to be picked up at a let-do you mind doing that for me? No, no, sure. I'll do that for you. Or, you know, mum, would you pick them up for us because I'm going somewhere else and I can't be there? And the mum might say, well, actually, no, I can't. And so then dad rings someone else to get the collection done. Again, I think that leaves scope for coercive control and not ending the bond kind of with the parent, particularly if you've got an abusive partner. So I know in family law, they say that the court has a duty to end financial relations between the parties, section 81. I wish they had one in the children to kind of minimise the harm. But case law has done that. But case law is having a lot of pickups and drop-offs at school. So there's no possibility of the parents being in conflict or what I've seen in my work as an independent children lawyer. I saw people, kids who would play up at school, not because their parents would have a fight at the gate, but in case they had a fight at the gate, you know, if they knew that there was going to be two parents at the gate and they were going home with one, that could be very stressful. Whereas if it was clear, mummy dropped you off, dad is picking you up. You know, it just makes life a lot easier for them. So, and again, we're talking about the people who have manipulative control in high conflict exit. If you're amicable, maybe you can do that and ring each other up and help. And I've heard of lots of relationships, I've seen lots of TikTok families, they're my parents successfully without it. And that's awesome. But like that right of refusal, I could see that being an absolute nightmare for the person who probably wanted it. Like if they've got an abusive X or a horrible manipulative X and, but they're worried that their kids going to be babysat all the time and they're not going to, and they're like, well, can I just have that in there? Because then that way I'll get them. Then their ex may use that as a way to manipulate, oh, I was only calling because I needed someone to babysit or call in the middle of the night. Like it's just going to leave that open forever. Or they, and of course you would, but it's a bit risky to have that as a fallback. But I think it is. And also I've seen where the requests have come when the person are asking for you to be step in and be the care of when it's really their type, but they ask for it at exactly the time they know very well you can't so that you have to say no. And they've got it documented. But and also in terms of knowing where you are, knowing what you're doing, as a coercive control tool, it's, it allows your toxic relationship to continue way beyond when it should have. So I caution people against that. And I think 61 dab was at section 61 dab or 6 to 61 dab, D.A.B. says that what arrangements you make when the kids are in your care are really your business, right? And what arrangements they make in their care with the time their care is really their business. And so you don't, and I've seen a case recently where they don't let you into fear too much with the other parents time. Fair enough. So let's just quickly go over it. So primary care really is the person who spend most time with the kids does the things with the kids. It's not gender based. It's just whoever is the person that's at home. It's usually not the bread winner. It's pretty hard to shoot proof that unless your ex is completely an Adelaide useless. But you know, family report writers can identify it. It's really clear. They'll look at the relationship at the child with the parents and they can tell if there's a proper attachment or not. Okay. So family report is a good idea for those people. Primary care matters because in interim hearings moving forwards, it seems that the courts are going to try and just leave the kids as they are until the final trial to make the big decision. It is something that you can prove. It's good to have some information on that if you're going to mediation. It's a good way to stop your ex taking you to court if you can prove it to their lawyer before they filed the affidavit or the information and you have to go in front of a judge. The court's not necessarily going to care about how the child is, who the child is being looked after once they're in their care. But if it does affect you, you could still raise it. You never know. You don't ask. You don't ask. Unless it's a bad person. Yeah. Of course. Of course. And mum, is there anything else that they need to watch out for? Anything that you see happening with this primary care role that we've already talked about? How all of a sudden they muscle in and pretend they're the primary career? Anything else we need to be worried about? I think listen to their language. If you go to a mediation with someone who is dead set fixed on 50/50 and you are not going to agree that's in the best interest of the children, you still have to go to mediation because you need that 60-i certificate. But listen to their arguments. Look in the letters and see what their arguments are. If they say you're unstable, for instance, start some counseling. Go to CSCologist if you need to. If they say you drink too much, get a hair follicle test. If they say you take drugs, do some tests or offer to do some tests. It's like, just listen to what they're going to say because that's the other side of the coin. They say, I'm the primary career now. And then it's end. The other person is unsuitable because of this dis-disadmitted. So, yeah, it's a. You can have it to contact, attack on you and it's really distressing. We've got a really good episode on protecting yourself from unfair accusations. So, go and listen to that. If it's an alcohol-related issue, we do have a good episode on that as well. So, I'll put those in the show notes. Mum, what would you embroider on a cushion for anyone listening today, dealing with this stressful issue where you have to label yourself, which annoys the haircademy as well, that there's labels when it's just you doing what nature is intended and how your family has managed to fall into place. And it's funny how you have to depend on it. Do you know how you have to rely on what's happened and their rewriting history. So, I thought, what if I wrote down something? Oh, that's right. It's a lot to a body you'll need a long cushion, but it's detachment. The quality of the time that you spend with the children and the attachment that the children have with you. Okay. Because that's something that can be assessed by the family report writers, the child impact writers, and also it will come through in your effort. I've just read a case of a lady who reported case. She went to court for the child. The other side wanted 40, 50, 50. And this lady said, the mother said, I want them more than my husband does. You know, I want them to have a home base and visit, you know, their father. But if the court's not prepared to do that, they'd been doing this for 11 months against her will and at hand, she said, but if the court's not prepared to do that, then I agree for them to live predominantly with the father and spend four days of fortnight with me. And the court said, it's a very risky game, but I think she was genuine. And the court said that the mother seemed more in tune with the children's needs and awarded her the majority of the time. Well, that's a gut punch. That's really showing how much you care about the kids. Yes. Yes. It's really showing it. And if it's it's always going to be like that. If you go to court, there's going to be two people. You know, deep down in your heart, who's the best, their best with most of the time. And it's not all the time. It's just more than 50, 50. I think I saw, I don't, sorry, I think I've heard of people in their affidavits to try and get that quality information across where, you know, the mother had a ritual of. reading a bedtime story and they had little activities they did every day and a little chart of, you know, Plato and what they were going to do that day and they went to the library every second week and listened to the storytelling man and you know, went to music. But it was little rituals and little things that you do, family and fun nights for every Friday and have some examples. Think about those little rituals that you have with your children that they would miss that you do that you create that that that goes on in your family life and put that in your effort able to get across the quality that you provide for your kids so that the judge gets it because again, if you are going to go to court, it's a judge that's going to decide and I know it sounds silly to be telling a judge how you read bedtime stories to your child based on the library books you choose every second Tuesday. But that could be the difference between them figuring it out or not. I think in most cases there's an aha moment and I think that an aha moment sometimes can be those details that make your effort able to live. It's not enough in your material to say, I was the primary career. You need to show the breadth of experiences that the children have with you and the type of life they have. Photos don't work. I mean, as Judge Bell once said, I've never seen a photo of an unhappy child attached to an affidavit. Photos don't work. But that makes your case live. And I think one of the things that the court looks at is the types of experiences they have and there are clauses, therefore, Torres Strait Islanders and Indigenous people. But we can also do it between people. One parent might be like the, I don't know, roller skating, tight surfing type father and the other parent. If they don't put anything in, it can look like it's it's not a really child focused environment. So yeah. All right. Well, that was a tough one. Because mum, I know you said quality and what was it? Quality and quality and attachment. And attachment. And I'm also going to embroider another one that says, start as you mean to go on, because mum says that all the bloody time. So start as you mean to go on with your kids after separation. Because usually status quo is what's going to happen in the interim. Just before we go, we're closing doors for enrollment for our members and our online course that closes tomorrow. It's actually when this podcast is going to go out. But you've got today, as listening as of Wednesday, you've got today this your last day to enroll. So don't miss out. Also, if you are interested, I'm going to start up again because I'm loving to listen to questions. But I would love to see some reviews on Apple or if you can actually I'm going to focus on Spotify for the moment. If you do a star rating on Spotify. But then jump into one of the episodes that you found really helpful and give us a comment that is basically a review. We're going to go back to choosing one person a month to get a free call with mum. It's good for us to keep in contact with our listeners. So this time next month, October 9th, I will be choosing one person from this month who has written a review in the Spotify comments and given us a star rating from Spotify. If you're interested, go and jump and do that. I'll also include YouTube as well. You can comment and give us a review in the comments on YouTube as well. So don't forget, doors closed tomorrow for enrollments. I am sorry if you had to listen to this episode because obviously your heart probably in your mouth right now worrying about what's going to happen. And we do feel for you and we do we hope that this goes smoothly for you and that everything happens in the best interest of the children and don't worry so many people have gotten through it. You can get through it and your kids will get through it and everything will be better eventually. It's just a little bit yucky in the meantime. So thank you mum for your time and thanks everybody for listening. Thank you Laura. Goodbye everyone. All the best. Bye. Bye. If you found this podcast helpful, we'd love it if you could rate, review and subscribe. By doing so, you are spreading the word to help someone else just like you. Lin would like to remind you that this co-cast is general advice only and you should always get legal advice in relation to your particular situation. And remember that the Australian laws may have changed since recording.
PodcastTranscript AI