We initially did but my lawyer (at the time, I now am self represented) didn't have time to vet and put all my responses in. They delivered their affidavit (with more than 100 paragraphs) only 2 days before court and just as they were extradited and/or ordered to come back to QLD (see my earlier comments about fleeing interstate).
My total response was about 48 pages long, as there was just so many complex lies on their part and some required me too attach evidence. So, with little time, my lawyer decided to run with "denied" for many of the detailed responses (to my partner's inconsistent claims) that she didn't get time to vet my answers with.
Then when we finally got to the 1st hearing my partner wanted to negotiate, as she knew how much she had lied; so the lack of a complete response to her affidavit wasn't such a big deal then - as all I wanted to do was see my son again as he had been away for 8 weeks.
But then the next hearing approached (which was only recently) and just before that we all went to see a report writer. After seeing the report writer's report andexperiencing the ICL at the second hearing paying almost no respect to what really happened and basically ignoring my partner's actions of unnecessarily abducting the child; it became obvious that the above-mentioned lack of affidavit on my part was hurting us.
However, just before the second hearing I was going to put one together but then I got duped, as my partner started to superficially negotiate consent orders; which made me think a new affidavit on my part wasn't required.
I was wrong as they turned up with their original consent orders (not the ones we negotiated) and of course the ICL went straight off the existing report and affidavit material.
Effectively that meant that my partner's 30 - 40 affidavit inconsistencies - that had grown their own legs,walked right throughand obviously (but wrongly) influenced the family report - were not held to account.
I know it was the lack of contrasting affidavit material that did it, because it was only when my lawyer (whom was on their last day with me at the last hearing) pointed out the inconsistencies within my partner's affidavit- particularly those related to the abduction and courts dates (as mentioned in my attachment) - to the ICL, did the ICL then change from her previously held extreme views.
Hope that makes sense. But basically I have a mountain of information I could compile that shows how my partner's affidavit it really inconsistent in many ways and how those inconsistences have not only influenced report writers and the ICL, but also allowed for the respondent to continue being inconsistent in the areas where an accurate affidavit from her might otherwise prevent it.
We are now in the family law courts dealing with parenting orders and have only interim orders in place.
Essentially, (as you know) there is a very low threshold of proof required for a domestic abuse allegation, and that was used by my partner to gain a custodial advantage with the abduction (which took 2 months to turn around with a recovery order). However, that is contrasted against the fact that with family law matters, the stake are exceptionally high - your children and reputation. My partner has throughout this matter been very successful with her inconsistencies, and that has probably been more so because to date I have not held her accountable for her affidavit's inconsistencies and how they have influenced the other above-mentioned processes we are also in.
That said, I think my partner now knows that her affidavits and other inconsistent claims, including those within the family report (some are quoted verbatim by the psychologist-report writer within the family report), are a huge liability. She was absolutely 100% nervous at the last hearing and it was only after it that the penny dropped with all this for me and I really worked out why. Not in the least as the family report contains inconsistent claims from my partner that you can trace right to her affidavit's inconsistent claims. Now I know why she was so keen to negotiate consent orders before the last hearing and ensure I didn't produce a contrasting affidavit. As without a contrasting affidavit from me she knew that the ICL - whom would still have a say regardless of whether we consented to orders or not (something I didn't know) - would only have her inconsistent information to go by.
If done right that (respondent's) strategy would then mean she didn't get discovered for releasing many inconsistent claims with her affidavit and report writing interviews; whilst also being able to sit back andprovide the impression that she was reasonable and negotiable - all as the ICL did her dirty work so to speak.
What she didn't expect was that the most recent hearing would not be a final hearing (we all thought it would be), as it was only one that turned out to be for directions only. This means that since we have another hearing early next year for the final parenting orders, I have until then to highlight all the inconsistencies in her claims with a contrasting affidavit (if the courts really pay attention to them; hence my questions), and to respond to her overall unreasonable actions, including the superficial negotiations related to consent orders that duped me and kept a contrasting affidavit out of the picture.
Despite the fact that any contrasting affidavit for this matter I do now produce will be very lengthy (as all the respondent's many inconsistencies have now influenced many processes within this unfortunate matters), it would be good to have some of the contrasting affidavit completed before the next psychological report/interview (I don't know when it is, only that it is happening), as to date none of these processes have done anything other than accept my partner's (the respondent) claims and therefore they have rubbished me.
If an accurate and contrasting affidavit was prepared before any upcoming interview, particularly so late in the piece now where it is obvious how influential many of the respondent's claims have been on this process, and if done right; I am hoping it will produce a psychological report that really demonstrates what is happening here.
As the real issue is a very manipulative and inconsistent respondent, and without someone considering that all you can do is run the risk of being considered "denigrating" as you try and honestly discuss the matter. And with that and the above said, as this matter goes on I can honestly see why many women use such mechanisms to gain custodial advantages, as most in the system (I have encountered) are very unwilling to meaningfully consider that a woman (not all) can manipulate the system and claim such a thing for reasons other than those superficially provided. They're just not interested and would prefer to consider you are in denial.