Solicitor

[Bjcbear]

How long can we keep quiet in access case that we have solicitor

On the C100 its usual to list the solicitor for correspondence etc, although I suppose you could leave it off and just turn up on the day of the hearing with one. So long as the court is happy with it I can't see why the other litigant would need to know.

We have had first hearing but my daughter cannot use me to speak as Mckenzie friend but have decided to engage solicitor but we don't want to show our hand just yet put the other side on the back foot so to speak

I don't know what the backstory is, obviously, but it sounds a bit off.

You're basically sandbagging the ex in the hope he/she (I assume he) is less likely to get the access he's seeking to your daughter.

On what grounds do you think this is justified?

It won't make any difference whether you have a solicitor or not. The court is on the side of the child who has a right to a relationship with both parents, only unless it's unsafe. I think this is a nasty minded way to go about things. In my vast experience a party without a solicitor generally gets a sympathetic ear from the court, as do all parents. Just do what's genuinely right for that child/ren

...generally gets a sympathetic ear from the court, as do all parents.

Ha, I call BS on that. You should have seen how "sympathetic" the three sexist grave dodgers that decided my case were. From three years of 50:50 to eow in under three hours.

We aren't sandbagging anyone we are thinking that the way he slagged my daughter off at the first hearing bleating that he wanted to see his daughter after 17 months of no contact when NO ONE has ever refused this but with supervision due to his drug abuse so don't accuse on something you know nothing about I was looking for advice not abuse

You're trying to pay him back for insulting your daughter in the Court room at the earlier hearing. You're trying to do that by putting him at a disadvantage in court by hiding your solicitor until you all get there. You are sandbagging him. That's not "abuse" it's a statement of fact - which your last post confirmed.

Regardless of that, if you really want advice then fwiw I don't think your plan will actually help you. It's likely he'll be given extra leeway by the judge/magistrates to have his say, purely because he's self representing.

That probably won't make any difference to their final decision, but it will likely mean more insults/accusations in court rather than fewer - a solicitor representing him would be much more measured and would tell him to shut up / cut him short where necessary.

If your daughter has a good case to put over, and this guy has a demonstrable record of abusing drugs etc, then she'll get most of what she wants from the Court. She's got a hell of a head start just from being the RP and mother. And it'll be a lot less heated, and likely much more truthful if he's represented too (assuming he can even afford one anyway).

Exactly what I wanted to hear pater power a measured response and you are right a solicitor will be less emotional I think we will tell him early wouldn't want to give him the sympathy vote

I think we will tell him early wouldn't want to give him the sympathy vote

This is sensible. If there's one thing judges hate it's surprises being sprung in the court room.

I think it is probably better just to let him know you have a solicitor acting now as he will realise he will not be able to just bully you into doing what he wants and he may even drop the matter (especially if he hasn't bothered until now).

As far as the actual hearing goes the court will always consider what they believe to be in the best interest of the child.