I am a parent who has been “forced” to do supervised access as this is the only way I can see my child at present.

The Interim custody order was granted under section 59 of the COCA.which relates back to section 29, which states “an order depriving a parent of a child must not be made unless the court is satisfied that the parent is for some grave reason unfit to be a Guardian and that the order will serve in the best interests of the child”
Admittedly I was unwell and was admitted to Hospital, I was not caring for my child at the time.
The “fictitious” affodavit by my ex was accepted by the court without any evidence or proof or investigation. Even on defence I was still not listened to, mainly because I got so emotional
( whatever you do don’t show emotion at the Family Court ! )

Supervised Access can also be ordered under sectio 60 and 61, which relate to violence.

I question as someone who has been ordered to do supervised access how often this is really necessary, I agree in some cases that may be necessary to protect a child from violence, but how many of you people reading this have been ordered to do this as a form of punishment imposed by the court because you dared to question or probe into their dysfunction ?

Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guility” which is the basis on which law courts should function.
I beleive supervised access is used by the Family Court as a punishment, if a bigger and better liar gets in there first, or if you question their rules ( especially the one about no family being allowed in the Family Court ) or if one does play the game by their rules you are then sent for punishment ( like a “go to jail card” in monopoly )

How much money has been wasted by the on this farce? yes, I would rather put my money into something that will protect children, but in my observation so far, may be two people who probably needed supervised access were there, but I have seen a Grandad in a wheelchair seeing his grandchild, a disabled man, a young Mum who looked as though she just could not cope with a baby, surely there must be a better system to help people who need help than the current one.

Supervised Access is only free if you are convicted of violence, if not the cost varies, these “charities” vary in their cost from $40.00/hour to $100.00 ! multiply this by several hours a week and then by a few years or months, it is a big earner for the providors of this service in my observation.
How many people can afford these costs, if you can you must be a high earner.
I will never give to these charities again, probably just Canteen who do a great job.

Section 29 of the COCA states that “the order will serve the best interests of the child” is it really in the best interests of these children to be placed in a dirty institutional place, with broken toys and with other strangers around ?

Section 60(5)(a&b) states that supervised access should occur either by an approved providor or in the immediate presence of a person approved by the Court (for example a relative, friend or any other person whom the Court considers suitable)
Why then is it left to the whim of a vicious ex to decide when and where this farce should occur?
Why is the ex allowed to defame your Family in Court out of maliciousness, with lies, so that ones family are denied the right to provide supervision ?
How many other readers to this atticle have been “snared” in the supervision trap ?

Lastly, section 4(1) COCA states “the welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration”
section 4(3) states “A parent’s conduct may be considered only to the extent(if any)that it is relevent to the child’s welfare and best interests”

UMMMmmm………………………………

this makes you question the whole “industry” of supervised access……

Julian