Whenever a couple who have children go through a divorce, there can often be such discourse between them, that they try to use their children as bargaining chips, despite advice from their family lawyer saying that doing so will more likely harm their cause, than help it.
One way in which this manifests itself is that the parent with the greater financial resources will demand that they see their children whenever they please, and if not, they threaten to not pay any child support.
On the flip side, the parent with whom the children live will refuse visitation merely to spite their ex-spouse, without realising that it is their children they are doing the most harm to, not their ex.
Despite the best efforts of their respective family lawyers to negotiate an amicable outcome, inevitably the whole matter will need to go to court in order to be resolved by a judge.
One of the most common issues the court has to deal with is one where a father is being refused visitation by the children’s mother, or at best, she is only willing to accept supervised or limited visitation, without providing any reasonable cause for them.
In court, his wife may claim that the children’s father drinks or gambles too much, is a womaniser and that he is also prone to bouts of violence.
To counter this, the husband’s lawyer may paint a picture of a model husband and father, along with testimonies from others vouching for his good nature.
Initially, the court is not going to take either of these two very different submissions at face value, so it is neither going to rule that the husband is entitled to full, unfettered visitation nor is it going to stop the father from seeing his children unless there is cast-iron proof that he would be a danger to them.
However, they will err on the side of caution, given that the best interests of children are paramount.
Were they to give the father full visitation, and then subsequently he did become violent with his children, the court would be in an extremely compromised position, so it will tend to be cautious until it has all the necessary evidence it requires.
So, rather than open itself to the possibility of being seen as negligent, the court will most likely order limited visitation or supervised visitation in the interim.
To both parties, it might seem like neither of them win, given that the other side got some of what they wanted, but not all. The point here is that the court is not interested in who ‘wins’, but rather that it does what is best for the welfare of the children.
It is likely to ask for reports and feedback from those supervising the visits as to how well the father interacts with the children and assuming there is nothing that could be regarded as a concern, at a later hearing, the judge may amend the visitation order to allow full visitation rights for the father.
This whole scenario emphasises why it is vital that you employ a family lawyer to represent you in court, especially if the divorce you are going through has become acrimonious.
The danger if it has is that your ex may go to any lengths, even those that may seem extremely unfair, in order to win the so-called battle between you.