In an article published on 10 March 2013 in the Telegraph, Katy Bice reports in relation to a father being restrained from sticking transfer tattoos on his four year old son.
The article, titled “Family Court Stops Dad Putting Transfer Tattoos on Son” relayed how the boys’ parents differed in their view in relation to transfer tattoos.
Bice reports: “The boy was caught in a conflict between the different personalities of each of his parents.”
The Court heard that on occasion the father would put transfer tattoos on his son, but then when the boy returned to his mother’s house, they were immediately removed. The boy described this process as “painful”.
The Court found that: “It is not the issue of the tattoo itself; it is respect for the child’s dilemma… It should not happen that the child runs into trouble over having those tattoos on him.”
In this case it appeared to be that the difficulty was that the two households had different standards as to what was acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
In my view it appears the boy was caught between the two different ideologies of his parents, and the issue of transfer tattoos which may otherwise seem minor, became a power struggle between them in which he was caught in the middle.
The parents appeared to have difficulty co-parenting and only communicated through sms messages and did not communicate face to face.
That being said the parents had been able to agree on major issues such as the amount of time each parent was to spend with the child, however, they could not agree on the issue of the transfer tattoos. The child’s school reported that he was “struggling” and fatigued. He also had behavioural problems at school. The Court found that this may have been due to the difficulties he was having with the different expectations between his mother and father.
In summary, the Court made orders that the father was not to put transfer tattoos on the son but did make Orders that the son spend more time with his father.
It is not uncommon in our practice of family law to come across parties who can at times agree on what would appear to be the more difficult issues, such as the amount of time they spend with the child, but yet cannot agree on what may appear to others to be “minor” issues.
For example, I have been involved in matters where issues, such as one parent for example, wanting the child to eat healthy and organic food and, the other parent letting the child have McDonalds once a week, caused a major issue between the parties which either represented a deeper underlying conflict between them, or seemed to inflame other parenting issues.
I have also been involved in matters where issues such as what backpack the child was to take to pre-school created major tensions and conflict between parties.
In the end, as the Court commented, it is the child that suffers when their separated parents are in conflict over such issues.
If you are seeking legal advice in relation to how to resolve a parenting issue between you and your ex-partner you may wish to contact us at Armstrong Legal on 9261-4555 for an initial obligation free appointment.