Hello ladies and gentlemen.
I was recently sent an e-mail about something I said on the latest broadcast when it comes to the custody of children. What I was discussing, was when the mother has predominant care for the children, she cannot be the prime decision maker. As the father of the children, I too have a part in the decision-making.
The e-mail goes on to discuss that when either the mother or the father are the predominant parent, that parent maintains the right to make 100% of the decisions for the child or children. I am here to tell you ladies and gentlemen that this is simply not true.
The only time one or the other parent has predominant decision-making for the child or children is if there are court orders put in place. If there is a court order put in place by a judge in family Court, then and only then can the law enforce predominant decision-making by one of the two parents. That of course would be the parent that maintains full custody of the children. But even then, the judge can deem the other parent that does not have full custody, fit to make decisions for the child or children.
So let’s reiterate. Unless the parents go to court to have court orders put in place for the children, and that court order states that one or the other parent does not have decision-making rights, then both parents have equal rights to the decision-making for the said children.
You also have to look at the verbal contracts. You and I may not necessarily call them verbal contracts, we may call them verbal agreements. Meaning, if I and my ex-girlfriend breakup after having children, then we come to a verbal agreement on how we are going to bring these children up as a separated couple. For example, my ex and I verbally agreed that she would have the children predominately, but both of us would have equal rights to the decision making for them. Bear in mind that we do not use terms such as verbal contracts in our daily speech per se, the court does. It recognises our verbal agreements as verbal contracts.
The court takes everything into consideration in both laymen’s terms and law speech. What I mean by law speech, is the speech used in court, by both lawyers and the judge. So when we state in front of the judge that we made a verbal agreement, the judge will see that as a verbal contract. Now when he or she, make their final judgement it will not necessarily depend on that verbal contract, but then again it may. Especially if the parents have never been to court for the children before.
When I was discussing on the recent broadcast, that it was in fact against the law for my son to be vaccinated without my consent, I meant it in the literal sense of the verbal contract between the mother and myself. The mother and myself have never been to court for our children. We felt, that it wouldn’t just be bad for us, but that it would be bad especially for the children and this is the most important thing that so many people fail to realise or simply forget.
Given that there is no contract put in place by the family court, there is nothing saying that I do not maintain the right to make decisions for the children. In fact due to the verbal contract between the mother and myself, there is everything that says I have absolute equal right to take part in the decision making for our children.
So you see, you have to get to know the way the court system works. There are many court systems, but in this case it is family Court that I had to get to know.
Now I understand, that there will be many men that e-mail me after reading this article. They will be questioning me as to why I didn’t go for predominant custody, when the mother and I were making the verbal contract. It’s very simple. Her and I get along quite well. Well enough anyway, that it was made easy for me to make what I think was the right decision.
As a father I wanted what was best for the children, and I believe that in the early stages of bringing up children, they need the maternal instinct rather than that the paternal instinct. And to this day I think I made the right decision. I get to see my kids whenever I want to, as I said on the broadcast. The mother of my children and I get along well enough, that if I was to say to her, “I want to have the kids tomorrow because I’ve got something important for them to see or do”, she would be the first one to bring them to my house or to allow me to go and pick them up.
The decision made for the vaccination was illegal. Albeit that her and I get along quite well, there are certain things that are done that go against our verbal agreement. I am dead against vaccination and needed to be contacted when this was going to take place, (the school where the vaccine was administered, is in fact just as much complicit) so that I could be a part of that decision. I was not. In the eyes of the court the verbal contract was broken. Unless of course the mother was to lie about the verbal contract in the first place, at which point the court would become the decision maker about whether or not both parents will have equal rights to make the decisions for the said children from the time of judgment and an order put in place.
Also, whilst our government is pushing to have mandatory/compulsory vaccines for children in every way it can, many judges around our country still maintain that it should be a parent’s choice. (Although this is changing) The court’s main concern is whether the parents can cognitively and cogently decision-make between each other, in the best interest of the children. If they cannot, then it will go to Council as to who is more suited to the decision-making of the children.
In the meantime however, the decision-making between the mother and myself needed to be exactly that. Especially as far as I’m concerned, was such an important decision when it comes to the health of our children.
If you have any further questions or queries, you can contact me at email@example.com and I will do my best to answer your questions and/or queries.