Harry Potter and Ron Weasley had Hermione Granger to help them out of trouble; a mother with a weakness for marijuana has the prospect of losing custody of her child to keep her on the straight and narrow.

A federal magistrate drew parallels between the fictional characters and the mother’s marijuana use when ruling on the child’s care.

Known by the pseudonym Ms Cannon, the woman has a five-year-old son with her estranged husband. She admitted smoking marijuana occasionally, when the child was not in her care. But the boy’s father, Mr Cannon, was concerned by her drug use and supposed lack of attention to their son’s welfare. He wanted his son to move in with him.

The magistrate, Warwick Neville, last week ruled the boy should live with his mother – but she must undergo drug testing. If she returns two positive tests three times within three months, the boy will live with his father, and have supervised visits with Ms Cannon until she remains drug-free for 12 months.

Conceding it was an imperfect analogy, Mr Neville likened Ms Cannon to Harry and Ron, the boy wizards who, in the first of J. K. Rowling’s bestselling books, get caught in a twisting vine called the Devil’s Snare.

“The harder they struggle, the more tightly they are ensnared,” Mr Neville said. Their rescue, ”courtesy of their valiant friend, Hermione Granger, comes via the shedding of light on the treacherous vine. Like these characters and their plight, it seems to me that Ms Cannon requires some assistance to ‘kick this habit’ and break free of the ensnarement of this different form of vegetation.”

Help for Ms Cannon was ”not provided by a spell from Miss Granger, but the requirement to undertake monthly drug testing for 18 months” – including urine and hair follicle tests.

While accepting Ms Cannon was a committed mother, Mr Neville said her responsibility as a parent ”must take precedence over any fleeting enjoyment or escape provided by her sometime use of marijuana”.

There was no evidence the boy had suffered any harm in his mother’s care. However, Mr Neville was concerned by Mr Cannon’s hyper-vigilant, “almost obsessive parenting”, saying it risked smothering the boy. “What might be described as over-protective or claustrophobic parenting can cause as many problems as it seeks to prevent.”

The Federal Magistrates Court in Canberra heard Mr Cannon only wanted the best for his son, moving from Sydney to Canberra to be closer to him. But “his intensity, together with his ongoing mistrust of Ms Cannon, makes for a rather potent parenting cocktail”, Mr Neville said.

Believing Ms Cannon was using drugs, Mr Cannon had their son drug-tested without her knowledge. He also complained about her giving the boy food with artificial colouring.

Read more…Marijuana smoking mother risks losing custody of child

Known by the pseudonyms Mr and Ms Demarchis, the couple separated in 2001. She won custody of their three children, and a court ordered they spend regular time with their father. But Ms Demarchis repeatedly contravened the orders and the father has not spent time with his children since August 2008.

”This is a most complex, difficult and ultimately sad case,” the federal magistrate Evelyn Bender said.

The parents do not speak and want to avoid any future interaction, the Federal Magistrates Court in Melbourne heard.

The children, now aged 19, 15 and 11, did not want to spend time with him. They described their father as selfish, rigid and uninterested.

”It was the wife’s evidence that she has, over the years, tried to encourage the children to have a positive relationship with their father, but that his ongoing lack of interest and participation in their lives has resulted in the children making the decision that they no longer wish to spend time with him,” Ms Bender said.

Mr Demarchis, however, did not concede that his behaviour or parenting style contributed to the breakdown.

Although the court directed Ms Demarchis to make sure the children’s mobile phones were charged and had enough credit to speak to their father each Wednesday, she failed to facilitate and encourage the calls.

She failed to make the children available for visits with their father, taking them to the beach and, on one occasion, avoiding him by driving to a town the children randomly entered into their sat nav.

An independent family consultant reported that the children’s reluctance to spend time with their father was due to his lack of emotional availability and rigid parenting style, but also the mother’s failure to support their relationship with him.

”The way forward in this matter rests very much in the attitudes of the parents and in their ability to accept responsibility for their own behaviours,” Ms Bender said.

She put Ms Demarchis on a good-behaviour bond, to pay $3000 for any breach, and ordered Mr Demarchis into counselling to improve his parenting strategies.

Source…Mother on bond for ignoring access order

Following are some of the most often repeated questions asked by people
who are unfamiliar with the subject. The answers provided here
represent information collected from various child custody attorneys.
While it is true that child custody laws are not the same for all
states, the following answers are expressed in general terms.
Obviously, you must consult local experts to determine whether these
answers will apply, as stated, to your own situation.

- What is the Definition of Custody ?

“Custody” refers to the court ruling that decides which party will be
responsible for the child or children when their parents are not living
together. This can apply to couples who are either divorced or
separated, as well as those who have never been married to each other,
but are biological parents of the children involved in the case.

- How is Legal Custody Different From Physical Custody?

If parent has been given physical custody, it implies that the child
will spend full time living at home with that parent, on a more or less
permanent basis. If the custody ruling is “joint physical custody”,
then the child is moved back and forth between the two parent’s
individual homes.

If a parent is granted “sole legal custody”, only that parent holds the
legal right to make decisions with regard to the child’s health,
education, and general welfare (physicians, schools, etc). When “joint
legal custody” is ruled, both parents will share in making these
decisions.

- How is a Custody Decision Made? A judge will typically give approval
to a custody arrangement once it is agreed to by the parents. If the
parents are unable to reach agreement, they will be required to speak
with a counselor or mediator who will help them work out a plan. The
judge is then required to make the decision on any disputed issues that
both parties are not able to resolve.

- Can a Child Still See a Parent Not Awarded Physical Custody?

Certainly. The court will typically issue an order which provides for
the non-custodial parent to have ample visitation rights with the
child. This can, however, be restricted in any case where domestic
violence is suspected or has occurred, or in a case where a parent’s
ability to properly care for the child is under question.

- What Happens When A Custodial Parent Forbids The Child’s To Visit The Other Parent?

The non-custodial parent can request that the court issue a “contempt”
order. If the parent is found to be denying visitation the court can
impose sanctions. If it can be demonstrated that it was done
intentionally, the non-custodial parent may then have grounds to sue
for the child’s custody. Usually, the judge will require the couple to
try to work things out with the help of a councellor of mediator before
taking that step.

- Can A Custody Arrangement Be Changed If It Isn’t Working?

Parents are normally able to make changes to a custody arrangement if
it isn’t working, provided they are both able to agree on the new plan.
They can then request that the judge to make it official. If the
parents continue to disagree, they can ask the judge to decide on the
changes. The judge’s decision will be based only on serving the best
interests of the child. This can become problematic if the child has
been well-cared for, or if the previous custody plan has been in force
for some time.

About the Author

Carlton
Driver is a retired Engineer who writes on a variety of subjects. There
are two FREE Reports about Child Custody Issues that you can download
from our site. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/custody1
to get the download link. For more extensive information regarding
custody issues, there are comprehensive Guides available at: http://tinyurl.com/custody2 where you can get more in-depth information.

Parents in some rural areas have to travel long distances to see their children under supervision because there is no contact centre nearby.

A family law court will order supervised access in cases where children are considered to be at risk if they see their mother or father alone. This can include cases where there is concern about family violence, serious mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse. In these cases, a court can order that a parent see a child – usually once a fortnight for about two hours – supervised by workers.

Read more…Separated Parents waiting months to see their children – Wheretofindpedia

Everything is considered part of the matrimonial pool: superannuation, your prized golf clubs, even cutlery inherited from your grandmother are up for grabs.

Latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows there are about 47,000 divorces granted each year in Australia, and that doesn’t include break-ups among defacto couples. Between a third and a half of all marriages end in divorce.

Getting the divorce itself costs very little. There are divorce kits available free at the courts. They are relatively easy to complete so you may not even need a lawyer.

What is expensive is going to court to resolve parenting and property settlement disputes.

Read more…The Financial Costs of Divorce – Wheretofindpedia

The report, by the Family Law Council, says changes made to the Family Law Act (1975) by the Howard government narrowed the definition of violence and was “conservative in its drafting”.

The review was one of three reports released this week on family law, one of which warned that women and children were at a greater risk of violence, The Australian reports.

The Family Law Council report said the definition of violence in the act was in “some ways reminiscent of the common law definition of assault”.

“It is questionable whether it encompasses the debilitating psychological abuse by controlling conduct,” the report says.

It argues that the definition of family violence should be amended to encompass behaviour that is not only physically or sexually abusive, but also economically abusive, threatening, coercive, “or in any other way controls or dominates” the other party.

Read more…Change to the legal definition of violence – Wheretofindpedia

A 300-report by retired family court judge Richard Chisholm recommends five changes to the so-called “shared parenting” law, which he described as a “tangle” that had taken the focus off “what is best for the children”.

The hotly anticipated Chisholm report, which was ordered by Attorney-General Robert McClelland after the shocking death of Melbourne girl Darcey Freeman, who was thrown to her death from the West Gate Bridge last year, says the shared parenting law has made it difficult for women to raise allegations of violence in the Family Court system.

Read more…Separated fathers face access changes after Chisholm report – Wheretofindpedia

THE Rudd government is preparing changes to the controversial shared parenting laws, to make it harder for separated fathers to argue for a 50-50 time split if their children are under the age of two.

The changes will come after the Attorney-General’s Department releases a massive report on child custody for public discussion, probably in the first week of next month.

The report, by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, is believed to be 1200 pages long, with a 30-page executive summary.

It was compiled with input from 28,000 people, making it one of the largest public consultation documents produced in Australia.

Contributors include parents, lawyers, judges, psychologists and others who work at the coalface of family law.

Read more…Change to child custody laws will make access harder for fathers – Your Family Network

The father, deemed “principled” and with “much to offer his children”, has been effectively banned from seeing his daughters.

The case will spark renewed debate about family law and the issue of shared parenting.

The father, who we will name “Bill” because he cannot be identified for legal reasons, is described by a Family Court judge as no threat to his daughters, a successful parent who is “courteous” and “intelligent”.

The same judge found the mother, whom we will call “Jasmine” and who abandoned her first daughter at two and spurned the child’s subsequent attempts at reconciliation, had displayed “dreadful”, “cruel” and “malicious” behaviour.

Read more…Psychological and emotional abusive mother gets custody – Your Family Network

About 150 children are taken overseas without permission each year, and the association says it is a form of child abuse.

It says the number of children affected is alarming and the law reformers have written to the Federal Attorney-General, asking him to criminalise the abductions.

The abductions are so common there is now an acronym for them – International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA).

Deputy Commissioner of the New South Wales Fire Brigades, Ken Thompson, had his son abducted in April 2008, and is now spokesman for the Coalition of Parents of Abducted Children.

“In April 2008, my son Andrew was kidnapped from Australia by his mother,” he said.

“They left the country, went to Singapore, then to Germany and they since disappeared without any trace. I just never imagined anything like this would happen.”

Mr Thompson said despite his wife exhibiting strange behaviour in late 2007, he had no inclination she would flee with their son.

“My wife was behaving very, very strangely in December 2007,” he said. “She was preventing me from having any contact with Andrew whatsoever.

“She then started to make some very, very serious allegations. I then took her to court to be able to resume my relationship with my son and to have her allegations investigated.”

Part way through the court process, his wife fled the country with their child.

Because she left during a court case, Mr Thompson was able to convince police she had breached the Family Law Act, enabling him to get some help.

“Because a crime hadn’t been committed under the Crimes Act, there was a lot of uncertainty about what the authorities could actually do, and that is when I realised there is a massive hole in our legislation,” he said.

“The vast majority of children who are abducted from Australia are abducted outside the Family Court process and in those cases, thorough investigations can’t be done because no crime has been committed.”

Read more…Push to criminalise parental abductions – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)