Family court and reduction in contact for private nursery

[ThisMustBeMyDream]

My other half is in family court tomorrow. He's self representing. It's a contested final hearing.

He recieved his ex's position statement which states she will agree no increase to current contact (which we expected). But that she wants to discuss a reduction in contact to facilitate the child going to private nursery 5 days a week as she wishes to go back to work. She is offering the bog standard every other weekend with one evening for dinner but must stay locally. The child is currently 22 months old.

He currently has 3 days wed/thur/Fri with an overnight in week 1 and Fri Sat sun in week 2 with an overnight. He wants to increase contact to add the additional overnights in.

He has no issue with her going to nursery. But since he already has this contact and he can care for the child instead of her going to nursery, how could this go down in a final hearing?

He has to prepare himself as self rep - and needs to work out how to address it without coming across badly. Any tips or experience with this?

Maybe they thought the once a week with an overnight was less disruptive than 3 days at a time with the back and forth. They had the information and arguments in front of them, all we have is second hand information from an OP heavily invested in one of the parties. Obviously OP doesn't think the arrangement is reasonable because it isn't what her partner wanted but that doesn't mean it isn't what is best for the child.

They weren't rushed though, were they, it was listed for the full day.

And if this little girl is being raised with a sibling, does it really make sense for them to be separated every other Christmas Day?

@MissMalice just my opinion. Doesn't make it superior to anyone else's.

I would be fascinated with the counter arguments because contact disputes are quite often agreed outside court and then just ratified by the magistrate who as poster have correctly stated are simply lay justices. Hence they don't act until the section 7 report is done.

Also if I have read correctly ss made recommendations about contact prior to the PLO period?

I would be curious to know whether cafcass or ss did the section 7 as in my authority as do it if there is existing or prior involvement and cafcass do it if it's simply a private law application.

They weren't rushed though, were they, it was listed for the full day.

And how many other cases did they hear at the same time?

I'm very curious as to what was on the video evidence and why they wouldn't accept it. It's not unacceptable at all to submit video evidence but the courts are a bit funny about the format. They tend to want it in advance so they can get a device to play it on. I heard an entire contact recording in court once it was 90 minutes.

The video was audio recording of the child at handover. They wouldn't accept it because it could have been any child, and at any time. They said it wasn't acceptable to covertly record.

Which incidently goes directly against police advice, which was to record every single interaction. But the court view it differently than the police do. So no one knows what is right anymore.

Recording of the child getting really stressed at handover?

Covert recording of children is hugely frowned upon.

She doesn't cry at handover. Mum previously tried to claim she did and was distraught after. So the social worker did a handover observstion and then an unannounced observation in mum's house after. It states in the s7 addenment that the child was calm and did not cry before and after contact and to summarise - there was no issue observed on that day.

Sw or family court advisor? Can't think why a sw would observe a handover. If we have dv concerns we usually recommend 3rd party handovers. I only speak from my own experience however

Now assuming ss did the section 7 due to the above - observing handovers would come into that

They did recommend 3rd party handovers. Mum point blank refused. Didn't want anyone dad could provide. Refused to put anyone forward herself.
Therefore when it went to court following the s7 report, it was either have no contact or accept she would be doing the handovers.
Yes the SW did the s7.

Ohhhmakes a bit more sense now.

Your partner may not have been awarded what he envisaged but what he has gained is regular court ordered contact. The child will see her dad a decent amount of time every week for the rest of her childhood. I'm surprised the dp isn't hugely relieved. The arduous bit is over he can get on with enjoying his child.

It's a reduction in contact though, which is the issue.

After a long discussion this evening, the crux of the issue is the Sunday 12.30 return. That's the bit that he wants changed the most. He wants a full weekend with his daughter.

He has managed to secure a 45 minute phone call with a family law solicitor for free, through his dad's connections. Once he has that advice, he will know more about what to do from here.

The child not getting a full weekend with her father isn’t common though is it, Queen? Though I guess that’s reasonable grounds to return to court to review the arrangements when child starts school.
Not alternating Christmas also isn’t common, even with half-siblings.

Make sure he highlights to that solicitor that he needs help securing legal aid, OP. So silly that he should be prevented from getting proper legal advice because of a form.

He's not going to get this order charged any time soon. Not over a matter of a few hours. Applying to vary a child arrangements order means going through mediation again and pretty much the whole process. Quite often the judge will say the order needs time to settle and not humour it anyway.

I recall my exh solicitor telling him he wouldn't get a Sunday night so not to bother fighting for it. I would have refused it because he can't put them to bed early like an adult and they are knackered. Still knackered post contact 6 fecking years on. But that is my experience only.

@MissMalice I'm assuming there are quite specific reasons though

Agree that returning immediately is unwise if no option for appeal.

A Sunday overnight is different to returning at tea time rather than lunch time.

For 5.5 hours he would go back to court? Really???

Once the child is in school the child would have what, a day and a half a fortnight with her dad?
And no holidays by the looks of it.
And it is already on record that a shared care arrangement would be possible in future.

If it did go back to court the whole thing would be reassessed anyway. The fact it was once stated it could potentially progress is meaningless.

I highly doubt the court will grant permission to apply to vary this order either on these grounds or before the dp can evidence it has been tested. Being unhappy about it doesn't evidence it's not in the child's best interests.

I wonder if the reduced Sunday is to accommodate some weekend time between the siblings.

On the whole, after reading all the new information, this order doesn’t seem so disasterous, even if it wasn’t quite what he wanted. Obviously I understand the reduction in time is undesirable, but he does have a decent chunk of contact overall.

It is a shame the specific Christmas issues weren’t dealt with, but if you had plans that would have been affected, he should have raised that and the court would most likely have accommodated. Although it probably wasn’t at the front of his mind at the time, it’s just one of those unfortunate things. Is it worth asking the ex to make an exception to the new order given that you had plans that would benefit the child? Seems like she might decline though. Even if the mum gets every Xmas (which is a bit strange), I would have thought provision would be made for dad at least on one of the other Xmas days such as Boxing Day or Xmas eve. Re: holidays, at some point, they are each going to want to holiday with the child so it is inevitable. Provision should also be made for her birthday. He might not want to miss contact on ‘her’ two weeks holiday, but he would gain provision for his own holiday time, which is invaluable. Just something to think about.

It’s great that he is getting some proper legal advice. Based on the information given, it does indeed seem unlikely an appeal would be successful, but there might be something that isn’t clear here that could form the basis of one. Otherwise, it will be a matter of letting the order run for a while and then going back to court to apply for an increase at which point if he is properly represented, all of these extra issues can be focused on and dealt with. Mediation isn’t appropriate due to the DV, but if the parties aren’t in agreement moving forward, a s7 addendum on the new issues would also certainly assist the court.

I know the whole process can seem unfair, but on the face of it, he has done really well so far and is enjoying regular decent contact. Please don’t be too disheartened. He should focus on enjoying the quality time with his daughter with a view to ironing out the wrinkles next year.