Children Vaccination Update in Australia
In the midst of the global Coronavirus pandemic, the Australian Government recently announced that children aged 5 to 11 are now eligible to receive the Covid-19 vaccinations, should their parents wish for them to. But what happens if you and your former partner cannot agree on whether or not to vaccinate your child? The Covid-19 vaccinations are administered in 2 doses, given 8 weeks apart. The time between the vaccinations can be reduced to 3 weeks if special circumstances permit. The purpose of the Covid-19 vaccinations are to reduce the severity of the illness if contracted. They cannot prevent the illness and some side effects can be experienced from the vaccination itself. Parental Responsibility on Children Vaccination Vaccinations can be a topical parenting issue for a number of reasons. Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Commonwealth) making serious decisions about a child’s health falls within the realm of parental responsibility. In most cases, parents will have what is typically referred to as Equal Shared Parental Responsibility – which means both parents get a say in determining any major medical decisions that may be required for their child. Under the legislation, parents must consult with each other and make a genuine effort and attempt to reach an agreement in relation to any major long-term issues in dispute concerning their joint parental responsibility (See section 61da(1) ). In facilitating such discussions, parents are encouraged to seek medical advice from their child’s General Practitioner or Pediatrician specific to the circumstances of that child and the vaccination in question. Once the information has been obtained, parents might like to consider attending Mediation or some form of alternative dispute resolution (rather than going straight to Court as this is a requirement anyway) to talk further about their concerns with the other party with a neutral third party mediator facilitating such discussions. If ultimately the parents cannot agree on whether or not to vaccinate their child, then an Application can be made by either parent (provided a Section 60I Mediation Certificate has been obtained or a special circumstance exemption is sought) to the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia seeking a parenting Order for their child/ren to be vaccinated or not. The Court has, in the past, made an Order requiring a child to be vaccinated and immunised. (See cases of Mains (2011) and Covington (2021). The first Case of Mains v Redden involved a Mother who objected to the child receiving certain immunisations that the Father wished for the child to receive after a consideration of side effects (which she herself experienced as a child). The Court ultimately found that they had the power to make any parenting Order it believed to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case having regard to the best interests of the child in question. The Court supported that the child be immunised at the first instance of the matter. This was later reaffirmed by the judgment in the High Court case of Covington and Covington where the Mother appealed against Orders made by the Court for the child to receive the vaccination and immunization arguing that the Court only has the power to make a binding parenting Order with the mutual consent of both parents otherwise this breached section 51 of the Constitution. The Court did not accept the Mother’s argument and the original decision was ultimately upheld. If you and your spouse have different views the issues of Children Vaccination and immunisations, contact the team of Brisbane Family Law at James Noble Law today to arrange a free, no-obligation 20 minute consultation to discuss this issue and your particular circumstances further. To schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
For more information, please visit our website: Children Vaccination
0 Comments
Following a family breakdown, emotions are high and stress levels can be extreme. In these circumstances, separated parents don’t always make the best decisions as they navigate this new unknown territory. Unfortunately, the children can sometimes get caught up in this parental conflict, which can be to their detriment.
A parent may knowingly or unknowingly take out their anger, frustration, and resentment on the other parent by unilaterally withholding the children and failing to facilitate the relationship between the children and the other parent. In the Australian media, this is typically portrayed as Mothers withholding children from Fathers. You might recall the 2012 case of the 4 sisters aged between 9 and 15 years who were caught up in a serious international custody dispute between their parents in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane. This case involved an Italian Father and an Australian Mother who refused to make the children available to see and spend time with their Father. The Mother fled Europe illegally with the children after convincing authorities that the Father had abused the family, which was later found to be untrue. While this case involves the added complexity of international jurisdictions, considerable evidence, and long, complicated proceedings, the Court ultimately ordered the return of the 4 sisters to their Father in Italy with the Mother effectively losing parental responsibility for the children. It is very serious to withhold children from a parent and there must be strong independent documentary evidence to back up a parent’s claim if they are alleging the children are at risk with the other parent. It is recommended that a parent seek independent legal advice before they withhold a child because if this is done in circumstances where it was not necessary or held to be contrary to the children’s best interests, there can be serious consequences including having the child removed from the withholding parent’s care. It’s important to therefore try and keep ‘adult issues’ separate to your co-parenting relationship with your former partner. Effective communication and focus on the children’s best interests must remain the priority. Studies have shown that high levels of parental conflict which result in unreasonably withholding the children from a parent can cause the children significant emotional harm later in their lives. If you are experiencing difficulty co-parenting with your former partner, you might like to suggest both parties attend a post-separation parenting program to educate parents on these issues or perhaps propose family counseling with an experienced psychologist or social worker. If your children have been withheld from seeing or spending time with you by the other parent, it is critical that you seek independent legal advice from Brisbane family lawyers as soon as possible. Time is of the essence. Depending on the circumstances, you may have grounds to make an urgent application to the Court seeking your time with the children to be reinstated urgently and to obtain legally enforceable Court Orders. Some important considerations for the Court in these circumstances are:
For more information or If you need any help please contact the Brisbane Family Lawyers team today for a FREE, no-obligation 20-minute consultation.We have Qualified and Experienced Family Lawyers Brisbane at James Noble Law. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps Near you now. You may like to know more information about the
In a recent Appeal of a decision of the Family Court of Australia, the Appellant Court reviewed orders between the parties in respect of their two children under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975.
The orders made provision for the children to live with the mother and for her to have sole parental responsibility for them. Relevantly, however, the orders also made provision for the children to spend time and communicate with the father and required the parties to ensure the children’s consultation with a psychologist appointed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Appeal against parenting orders The orders which require the children to spend time and communicate with the father were intended to resolve those issues until that discrete aspect of the parties’ dispute was given further consideration about six months ahead. While the orders did not therefore finally determine those issues, it is clear from the reasons for judgment that the primary Judge was only intending to contemplate the expansion, not constriction, of the children’s interaction with the father after December 2021. The mother appealed this judgment. The central challenge in the appeal was that the primary judge erred at law when assessing the risk of harm posed to the elder child as “low” and to the younger child as “even less [than low]” as a consequence of their prospective sexual abuse by the father or a member of his family and, further, by finding the children would not be exposed to an unacceptable risk of harm by spending unsupervised time with the father. The mother’s appeal was supported by the ICL, but resisted by the father. For the reasons which follow, the appeal was dismissed. Appeal against parenting orders dismissed The mother made allegations about the father’s physical (but not sexual) abuse of the elder child, causing the doctor to make a mandatory report of her allegations to the New South Wales child welfare authority. As a consequence, the elder child was then referred to a psychologist for counselling. The mother withholding child from father Australia altogether, ending the arrangement she initially implemented for the children to spend time with the father if supervised by the maternal grandfather. Relying upon statements made by the elder child to the mother and the maternal grandmother, the mother concluded he had been sexually abused by the father. Consequently, the mother brought an urgent application to immediately suspend the existing interim orders and stop the children from spending supervised time with him. Those orders were suspended in May 2019. Neither child saw the father after that. The trial was heard by the primary Judge over five days in August 2020, with the pre-eminent issue being whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. The mother’s case was that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children because, historically, he had physically and sexually abused the elder child. She sought an order mandating that the children spend “no time” with the father because, as she contended, it was more important to protect them from the risk of harm he posed than to ensure they derive benefit from their relationships with him The father’s case was that he had not physically or sexually abused either child, he had always enjoyed close and loving relationships with both children, and their interests were best served by immediate re-introduction to him to avert any detriment to their emotional welfare, which would otherwise occur if their estrangement was allowed to continue. Realising the children had been withheld from him for well over a year by the time of trial, the father proposed their staged re-introduction to him, beginning with supervision so as to abate any anxiety which may be experienced by either them or the mother. He also suggested, as an alternative option, that the orders be reviewed some six to twelve months ahead, after the family therapy proposed by the ICL had begun. The orders made by the primary Judge reflected the primary Judge’s acceptance of the father’s case and rejection of the mother’s case. Specifically, the primary judge rejected the proposition that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. In the Magellan Family Report the family consultant said as follows: [The elder child] has reportedly made a number of statements since March 2019, which suggest that he has been sexually abused by [the father]. When a young child makes a disclosure indicative of sexual abuse, it is always important to consider what the child has said, and the context for the child making such a disclosure. This is important as children do not have a mastery of language, and a simplistic view of the world, and they may thus not be able to provide and accurate description of events, and this may give way to misinformation. Furthermore, children can also be vulnerable to suggestions, and they may also be inclined to try to please adults, and this means that children can sometimes agree with false statements or make false statements they have been lead to believe an adult wishes to hear. For example, if an adult asks a child whether a particular person has touched them inappropriately, a child may be vulnerable to answering in the affirmative, even if the event has not taken place, particularly if they have been asked this question a number of times and the adult asking has not appeared contented by their pervious responses. There is also the possibility that a child can come to believe that something has occurred if they are repeatedly questioned about certain events, or repeatedly asked to say that certain events occurred. While it is sometimes difficult to determine whether child sexual abuse has occurred because a child has provided an inadequate description about what has occurred, the statements reportedly made by [the elder child] seem to be very clear disclosures that sexual abuse has occurred. Notably, [the elder child] has reportedly clearly stated, amongst other things, that his father and his [the paternal uncle], put their penises in his bottom and, on a separate occasion, that his father put [the elder child’s] hand on his [the father’s] penis and in his [the father’s] bottom. From the information provided by [various witnesses] in affidavit material, [the elder child’s] statements regarding sexual abuse were unprompted. It does not appear that [the elder child] was ever asked directly by any of them whether [the father] engaged in sexual acts. From what is detailed in affidavit material, it does not appear that [the elder child] was subjected to any probing utterances that might have lead him to make a false statement about sexual abuse. If it is accepted that [the elder child] has disclosed information in the manner stated, there would be little concern that [the elder child] has inadvertently been influenced to make these statements. It is, however noted that it might very well have been difficult for [the witnesses], to recall exactly what [the elder child] said at the time of [the elder child] allegedly disclosing such information. It is also noted that in the Project Magellan report that [the maternal grandmother] acknowledged some of her questions to [the elder child] were leading. In one discussion with [the elder child], fantasy was used in an attempt to support [the elder child] to talk about disclosures. If this has occurred, there may be some question about whether [the elder child] has accurately stated what has occurred, or whether he may have been inadvertently led to make a false disclosure. Consideration about whether [the elder child] might have inadvertently been led to make a false disclosure of sexual may need to account for what leading questions and fantasy scenario [the maternal grandmother] might have put to [the elder child], and when this occurred. Unfortunately, the Family consultant was unable to find any further information about this in what was able to be viewed of the DCJ file. The multitude and variety of statements made by [the elder child] to various people, however, might ward against believing that [the elder child] has been inadvertently caused to affirm that sexual abuse has occurred. (Emphasis added) The primary Judge’s decision was appealed by the mother primary Judge’s decision was appealedThe question of whether or not an unacceptable risk of harm is posed to a child is determined by application of the civil standard of proof under s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 .. In determining what orders will be in a child’s best interests the Court must consider the matters in s 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. When considering the matters in s 60CC(2) the Court is required to place greater weight on the need to protect a child from physical or psychological harm, and from being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. Unacceptable risk requires two separate steps. Is there a risk, and is it unacceptable? The concentration is upon both the nature and the degree of risk in the particular case. Its formulation is all about balance. In some cases a risk is ‘acceptable’ when balanced against other factors and other orders. The object of safeguards is to convert an unacceptable situation to an acceptable one where that is feasible and is of ‘benefit to the child’. Since the children had not seen the father for about two years preceding the pronouncement of the appealed orders, the primary judge was satisfied the children should be initially supervised with the father to reassure the mother, to support their re-introduction to him (which would also be facilitated by family therapy with a psychologist) and to restrict the chance of further allegations being made against him. The Appellant Court decided that the mother failed to establish her case that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children The appeal will be dismissed. If you need help, please contact the brisbane family lawyers team at James Noble Law today for a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation. Schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
For more information, please visit the main article source: Appeal Against Parenting Orders In parenting matters, the Court’s main focus is making orders that align with the children’s best interests as this remains the paramount consideration. But how does the Court determine what is in the best interests of the child?
There is no hard and fast rule for this. Each case is decided depending on it’s own circumstances and there are a number of considerations the Court takes into account. These considerations are broken down into “primary” considerations and “additional” considerations. The primary considerations include the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both their parents and the need to protect the children from physical or emotional harm. The additional considerations include matters such as:
The Court will examine the historical parenting arrangements and most importantly, the events that have occurred post-separation. Often the level of communication between the parents is significant in the Court’s decision and impacts the type of arrangements that are ordered by the Court. If you need help, to discuss parenting matters and whether mediation could be an appropriate pathway, please contact the Brisbane family lawyers team at James Noble Law to arrange a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation to discuss your particular circumstances. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more about the following:
The adoption process in Queensland is managed by the government organisation Adoption Services Queensland.
A child’s Stepparent (being either married or in a de facto relationship with the parent of the child) can make an application to adopt the child if they can satisfy the below criteria:
Both biological parents of the child must voluntarily consent to the adoption before the Children’s Court can make the adoption order. If the biological Father’s identity is not known, Adoption Services Queensland must try to establish the Father’s identity and locate the Father to give him notice of the proposed adoption and information relating to the same. There are some circumstances where the Children’s Court can dispense with the need for both biological parents to consent to the child’s adoption. This commonly includes where a parent unreasonably or unnecessarily withholds their consent or the parent does not have the capacity to consent to the adoption. If the child is aged 17, a separate process is involved provided the adoption can be completed before the child turns 18 years of age. For more information about the process of Adoption QLD, contact the team at James Noble Law today for a FREE, no-obligation 20-minute consultation. To schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
Binding Child Support Agreement or Limited Child Support Agreement?
When parents reach an agreement in relation to child support, there are two options available to formalise that agreement. Those two options are:
What is the Binding Child Support Agreement? A Binding Child Support Agreement is a contract between the parents which sets out the terms of the agreement they have reached in relation to the amount of child support for their child/children and how that child support will be paid. The main aim of a Binding Child Support Agreement is to formalise the future child support payable (usually until the children are all 18 years old or until they complete their final year of grade 12) and for the parents to have certainty in this respect. Before entering into Binding Child Support Agreements, both parents must obtain independent legal advice from a solicitor before entering into a Binding Child Support Agreement. What is a Limited Child Support Agreement? A Limited Child Support Agreement is a less formal written agreement that can be entered into between parents in relation to formalising future child support. It is in the same format as a Binding Financial Agreement, but does not require independent legal advice and has some different rules that apply. For a Limited Child Support Agreement, there must be a child support administrative assessment in place and the amount payable in child support must be equal to or more than the current child support assessment. Limited Child Support Agreements can be set aside or varied in the following circumstances:
To decide what child support agreement best suits you and your circumstances, contact the team at James Noble Law today and book a FREE 20-minute initial consultation. If you are considering changing your child’s name in QLD (Queensland), then contact the team at James Noble Law today for a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation today to schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
Are you considering changing your child’s name?
For children born or adopted in Queensland, parents may change their child’s first name once before the child turns one (1) and parents may change their child’s family name no more than once every twelve (12) months. Both parents must consent to the change of name and the child himself or herself must consent to the change, if they are over twelve (12) years of age. To change your child’s name there are a number of requirements that must be met. Both parents must provide a certified copy of their ID and supporting evidence for any previous change of names (i.e. marriage certificate, change of name certificate, etc). A detailed reason for changing the child’s name must also be provided. A prohibited name will not be approved. If only one parent wishes for changing a child’s name in QLD, then additional evidence will be required. For example, if one parent is deceased then a copy of their Death Certificate is required. If both parents are in dispute as to the child’s change of name, then a Magistrates Court Order providing for the change of name is required. It is important to note that a parent with sole parental responsibility pursuant to a Court Order cannot apply to change their child’s name unless the Order specifically states that the parent can change the child’s name. The new name must be included in the Order. If you are considering changing your child’s name in QLD (Queensland), then contact the team at James Noble Law today for a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation today to schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
For more information, please visit the main article source: Changing Your Child’s Name Children Family Court Jurisdiction: In a recent decision in the Family Court found that it was very regrettably that the mother did not support the child being vaccinated.
The Court considered that her opposition to the child being vaccinated, as the child’s principal carer, would likely complicate the process and make it much more difficult for the child. The Court considered that in these circumstances it would be counter-productive for the mother to accompany the father and the child to any medical appointments concerned with the vaccinations. The Court considered that the mother’s opposition to the vaccinations would be likely to cause distress to the child. The Judge stated, “The mother’s position in this regard is to be lamented. It flies in the face of the evidence of Associate Professor D, a consultant pediatrician and infectious diseases physician at B Hospital who had prepared a report dated 1 December 2019 which was in evidence at the trial. The mother’s position concerning vaccination is not child-focused, and it is not in the best interests of the child. It is not based on evidence, and on the evidence of Associate Professor D it may expose the child to harm.” 2. The Court made Orders which would allow the child to be vaccinated in the following terms: (a) That the child be collected by the Father from the Child Minding Centre of the Family Court of Australia (b) The child live with her Father. (c) The child spend time with her Mother each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school (d) The arrangement provided to continue until the third phase of the vaccinations have be completed, whichever date is sooner. (e) Following the date referred to in Order 2 (d), the parenting arrangement return to that as indicated in the Final Orders dated 3 December as if it were Week One of the cycle. (f) In the event the Mother fails to return the child to the Father as provided for herein, the Father have liberty to contact the Chambers of the Judge by way of email seeking an urgent recovery order be administered in Chambers. (3) The Father be at liberty to provide a copy of these Orders to: (a) The child’s school (b) The child’s medical practitioners; (4) In the event the Mother fails to make the child available for collection pursuant to the Orders, the child be delivered to the care of her Father, a recovery order do issue authorising/directing the Marshall, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the police forces of all the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia with such assistances as may be required and if necessary, by force: The Judge said that if the mother is able to contain her own fears in relation to the child being vaccinated and support the orders that have been made, it may be expected that the father will involve her in the process as he had said he will do. That would unquestionably be in the child’s best interests, but it will require the mother to set her apprehensions to one side. It is to be hoped that she will be able to do so. Prior to the Orders being made, the mother had continued actively to oppose the program of vaccinations which has been approved. The mother had opposed the program to such an extent that there was evidence that she had worked the child into a state of near hysteria such that she refused to go into the father’s care in accordance with the arrangements that the parties agreed. The father had organised a sensible program of vaccinations for the child supervised by appropriately qualified medical professionals at a Hospital and had informed the mother of his proposals, but she ignored these communications. Instead, she commenced separate proceedings. She made an application for an interlocutory injunction in the High Court seeking to restrain the commencement of the vaccination schedule. Her application was dismissed by the High Court. She withheld the child from the father for several days and informed the child that the father was intending to have her vaccinated that week. The child became highly distressed at the prospect of being harmed by vaccination to the point that she became inconsolable and would not stop sobbing. The Court found that the mother’s actions in this regard were deplorable and that they were the very antithesis of child-focused and that her actions elevated her own irrational and unscientifically based fears above the best interests of her daughter. If you need any help, contact the team at James Noble Law for a FREE 20-minute consultation today. To schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Brisbane family lawyers. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may like to know more information about the For more information, please visit the main article source: Family Court Jurisdiction Are you and your former partner discussing the future care arrangements for your child or children? If so, perhaps consider entering into a Parenting Plan.
It is a private agreement between two parents which can detail the agreed arrangements in relation to a child/children. This includes provisions for the time, school holidays, special occasions, telephone communication, etc. A Parenting Plan when signed by both parties then comes into effect. And it is flexible and can be updated as and when the parents require or at important junctions in a child’s life i.e. when commencing Prep. However, it is important to note that a Parenting Plan is not legally binding and cannot be enforced. This means that if a parent breaches the terms and conditions of a Parenting Plan there is no direct consequence. Although this can be used as evidence in Court proceedings. To further discuss Parenting Plans, please Contact our experienced team of Brisbane family lawyers at James Noble Law for more information. Article Source: Parenting Plan How Our Children are Exposed?
Children exposed to disturbing content on the home computer, despite the best intentions and efforts of parents who have installed filters and monitoring systems to protect their children from inappropriate content. Children whose parents believe they are watching harmless and age-appropriate videos (such as Pepper Pig and Frozen), may be exposed to disturbing violent or pornographic content involving their favorite characters. Disturbingly, this content isn’t picked up or caught by YouTube and YouTube Kids and can appear on your children’s screens without warning. Children Are Being Exposed to Terrifying Content Online Clinical psychologists warn that children exposed to this content can suffer anxiety, depression, and nightmares or may start acting out and behaving violently or inappropriately. If your child has been exposed to one of these videos, psychologists recommend that you talk to them about it, reassure them that they are safe, and seek professional help if they continue to be scared or experience nightmares. Child Safety Experts offer the following advice to parents:
Article Source: Children Exposed |
Categories
All
|