Welcome to the DAD.Info forum: Important Information – open to read:
Our forum aims to provide support and guidance where it can, however we may not always have the answer. The forum is not moderated 24 hours a day, so If you – or someone you know – are being harmed or in immediate danger of being harmed, call the police on 999.
Alternatively, if you are in crisis, please call Samaritans on 116 123.
If you are worried about you or someone you know is at risk of harm, please click here: How we can help
Hi guys,
I have shared residency and a contact order in place for my 11 year old son. my ex now wants to take me back to court to vary the order but I cannot afford any legal representation this time.
My fiancee has been through all of this with me from the beginning and has learnt that she can represent me in court (i go to pieces in these situations). What does everyone think about this? Has anyone been in a similar situation?
I know that it would really p*** my ex off but my fiancee really does have the best intentions for my son and has done much more for him than my ex has ever done.
Also she is applying for the variation, yet she continuously breaks the current one to what suits her and I cant afford to inform the court about this myself and will have to wait until she gets all her funding and wait for her to take us back to court. She is applying for the variation for special occasions and specific times to be put in to the order. Although she only wants this when it suits her.
Why is it that a single mother (i use that term very loosely) who works 4 hours a week, does nothing all day everyday (but check what benefits she can get) goes out 4/5 nights a week, owns her on home with all modcons, goes on 2 foreign hols a year (without her child) and owns a car, can actually be eligible for income support and all legal funding and myself who works 50 hours a week, goes out twice a month (maybe),i own my home and an old little van, and I get absolutly nothing but a kick where it hurts? Where is the justice in that?
No wonder there are so many people claiming benefits when it is worth while to do so, I am seriously thinking that I would be better off not working and then also I would get to see my son more. For people with legitimate reason why they cannot go to work then that is fine, but for people who are just downright lazy they should get nothing but a good kick up the [censored] and told to pull their fingers out!
It makes me so mad!
Any opinions!?
Hi fedup,
Thanks for keeping your posts coming. I am so pleased that your fiancee is such a help to you. It makes such a difference to know someone is 'really there' for you through difficult times. You both seem to be working together to do the best for your son.
Assuming that she does go to court for the variationI hope the court really take into account how she is not honouring the current contact order.
You are obviously hard working. I haven't been in your situation but have worked sustained times of 50 hours and it is tough, especially when you have a young family to care for (as you know).
My wife used to regularly bring up the topic of how unfair it was that we paid our taxes, bills and everythying else but when times got a bit stretched (when our 3 were small). I guess I come at it from a different angle than her because it is impossible to make a welfare system that doesn't let people 'take it for a ride'.
Then think that I feel deep inside me is that it is horrible to have no sense of contributing to society in a positive way. So I would love to... what was the phrase you used... 'good kick up the [censored] and told to pull their fingers out' - so they could learn what it is to have a sense of achievement about doing ordinary things alongside the others in their community.
I'm not sure that your fiancee can represent you in court - I think the court can grant permission if you have a compelling reason, but I'm not sure how often they do this. She can be a MacKenzie's friend though, and this may be the way to approach it. I wouldn't put forward the argument that she has done more for your son than your ex did, though (however true it may be, and it was the same in my case), I'm not sure that the courts would like this - but just an opinion, so others may have other views on this.
Hi Fedup,
A mackenzies friend is a legal term (from a divorce case in the 70's McKenzie v McKenzie) for a friend who may assist you in court. They don't have to be legally qualified. You would still have to represent yourself though - I believe a mackenzies friend is able to take notes during the hearing, provide moral support, speak quietly to you during the hearing, however they are not allowed to represent you or address the court (judge).
I will get our friends at the Childrens Legal Centre to cast their eye over this thread and see if they have any input.
Now I've learned something - didn't know the case that the term came from.
Bet the 'friend' wasn't a friend to both MacKenzies in that case 😆
😆 😆
It's actually a really interesting story :
McKenzie v McKenzie was a divorce case in England. Levine McKenzie, who was petitioning for divorce, had been legally aided but the legal aid had been withdrawn prior to the case going to court. Unable to fund legal representation, McKenzie had broken off contact from his solicitors, Geoffrey Gordon & Co. However one day before the hearing, Geoffrey Gordon & Co sent the brief for the case to an Australian barrister in London, Ian Hanger, whose qualifications in law in Australia did not allow him to practise as a barrister in London. Hanger hoped to sit with his client to prompt him, take notes, and suggest questions in cross-examination, thereby providing what quiet assistance he could from the bar table to a man representing himself. The trial judge told Hanger that he must not take any active part in the case, which Hanger interpreted as an order to desist from doing what he was doing.
The case went against McKenzie, who then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that he had been denied representation. On 12 June 1970 the Court of Appeal ruled that the Judge's intervention had denied McKenzie of assistance to which he was entitled, and ordered a retrial.
Ian Hanger, the original McKenzie friend, is now a QC at the Queensland Bar
Very interesting.
I studied law abuot 10 years ago (purely for pleasure, never had any intention of doing anything with the qualification) - it was the details of cases like these that made studying so interesting 🙂 )
Welcome to the DAD.info forum.
We don’t like to set ‘rules’, but to make sure that you and the other dads are kept safe, we have some requests. When engaging with the forum, please be aware of the following:
- The forum is not moderated 24 hours per day.
- Many of the moderators do so on a voluntary basis. Whilst they may be able to provide some guidance, advice or support, they may not be able to deal with specifics.
- We are not an emergency crisis service so if you or someone else is in immediate danger, please call emergency services.
- If you are concerned about the safety of a child, please click here to find the support you can get for them (link to new page)
- If you are in crisis, please call Samaritans on 116 123. They are open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.
We hope you find this forum a supportive environment and thank you for joining us.