GUILTY Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 *Arrest* #19

[Detechtive]

Yes, it is possible to obtain sole parental responsibility (also known as full custody) when the other parent is incarcerated for life. While there is no automatic loss of parental rights due to incarceration, a court can determine that it is in the child's best interests to grant sole parental responsibility to the other parent.
Factors considered by the court:

• The child's best interests:
  This is the paramount consideration in all parenting matters.
• Safety of the child:
  The court will prioritize the child's safety and well-being, which may be compromised by the imprisoned parent's situation.
• Views of the child:
  The court will consider the child's maturity and understanding of the situation, though they are not required to express views if they prefer not to.
• Capacity of the parents:
  The court assesses each parent's ability to meet the child's developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs.
• Relationship with the child:
  The court will consider the benefit to the child of maintaining a relationship with both parents, but only if it is safe to do so.
• Evidence of parental unfitness:
  If the imprisoned parent has engaged in behaviors that demonstrate unfitness, such as domestic violence or neglect, this will be considered, according to legal resources.
  1. 1. Seek legal advice:
     A family lawyer specializing in child custody matters is crucial to guide you through the process.
     
     
  2. 2. Prepare evidence:
     Gather evidence to support your claim, including police reports, school records, medical records, and testimonies from professionals, according to a legal blog.
     
  3. 3. Apply for parenting orders:
     You will need to apply to the Family Court for parenting orders, which can be done through consent (agreement between parents) or through a court hearing.
     
  4. 4. Consider the child's views:
     If the child is mature enough, their views on the arrangements will be considered, according to legal resources.
     
  5. • Imprisonment does not automatically terminate parental rights:
       The court will still assess the situation to determine the best outcome for the child.
     • Even with a court order, the incarcerated parent may still have some rights:
       This may include the right to communicate with the child, depending on the specific circumstances and court orders.
     • Supervised visits or limited time with the child may be considered:
       If it is deemed necessary to protect the child's safety, the court may order supervised visits or restrict the incarcerated parent's time with the child, according to a legal blog.

Ridiculous IMO. Parents give up their rights to be parents when they murder. IMO

 

[MrJ]

Was thinking earlier of what it would have been like to be in the jury's shoes, having a large volume of evidence to comb through. There is the stuff that has been publicly released, already quite a lot. Imagine the amount of unreleased evidence as well. Testimonies, judge instructions. I was anxious when it took over a week, but it really was for the best given all they had to work through. Quite a mountain of stuff to sift through. It's made me appreciative of the jury process, and well done and good job to them for coming to the right conclusion.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

And above all, for your mother to essentially call both you and your sibling liars and mistaken in your evidence to the police, which no doubt may have been difficult to do in and of itself, would be terrible mentally at the very least.

Would the children even know that?
They weren’t in the court and I can’t imagine the family would tell them that.

 

[MrJ]

Would the children even know that?
They weren’t in the court and I can’t imagine the family would tell them that.

They might not know right now but they may read about it in the future.

 

[Monstradamus]

And above all, for your mother to essentially call both you and your sibling liars and mistaken in your evidence to the police, which no doubt may have been difficult to do in and of itself, would be terrible mentally at the very least.

She does not deserve the title of Mother.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

They might not know right now but they may read about it in the future.

Let’s hope they are adults by then.

 

[sunspun]

I know that, but why would they go when she had poisoned him 4 times???

I would say this tells us that they didn't believe that she had. Yes, they knew that Simon had suspicions of that, but apparently, he didn't convince them into sharing those suspicions. And I would bet he really didn't even TRY to convince them! I don't think he was sure enough that he was right, for one thing, but I think also that he still saw it as too outrageous of an idea that he may have even felt foolish when he told Don. I think he was reluctant even to merely raise the possibility of her poisoning him to them at all. Which I believe speaks to what others have said, that they were all such really good people and true Christians as well, that they gave her too much benefit of the doubt and likely found it too hard to accept that she could be so evil. Simon must have had to overcome some major hurdles in his own psyche before he was finally able to take the idea seriously.

After he told his dad his suspicions, Don and Gail would also have had to jump those same hurdles in their minds, and I don't think they had done that. They probably would have with more time, but she got to them before that.

 

[Megnut]

Do I have this right? EP claimed she wanted a divorce which SP denied her, but when he rightly declared his status as 'separated', she didn't  cheer, elated he was ready to move forward in the divorce process?

But instead got angry and launched right into arguing about child support?

And SP didn't argue it. He agreed to pay it!

So she moved the goalposts again, arguing now that -- in addition to child support -- she expected him to pay tuition/activities/etc as well. Seriously. Arguing that before having a discussion , reaching an agreement on the amount of child support? She sounds like someone who simply wants to argue. (Notable that SP was trying IMO not to engage with her for is very reason.)

Her argument was inane. A legal child support plan would surely have factored for the children's expenses and been calculated accordingly. It was an empty argument, one she invented 8n order t9 force SP's engagement. Negative attention is attention. And when SP held firm (no engagement), she upped the game, drawing his parents into her made up argument. Now SP is a bad dad, shirking his responsibilities, for I guess not paying overages to a child support amount that was never determined.

Remember, her "argument" was that SP was refusing to pay anything more for the children, ab9ve child support which hadn't been determined!!!!

Her in-laws IMO tried to be diplomatic... until EP started attacking  them (if you loved the children, you would....l), then tried to recuse themselves. But, as we've seen, there isn't a healthy boundary anywhere that that EP respects. She wanted them to force SP to engage with her.

That is what her relationship with SP was. Engagement. Maladaptive relationshipping.

(Same IMO with her relationship with her children. Not commending them for being honest, but instead modeling dishonesty, and worse, flipping it. She is honest, they are not (which flies in the face of what they themselves have experienced -- which is exactly how chronic gaslighting eventually erodes one's trust in one's own perception.)

When EP could not get SP's parents to engage in her fabricated fight against SP nor get them to force SP into engagement, she was done with them. They were as SP to her. One and the same.

Why the other couple? This is how cold, petty, indictive EP is -- she invited them (led them to slaughter) as BAIT, to draw the others in, because surely she'd mean them no harm.

That is how casually she willing to kill.

There is constant talk about no motive here. I think the stark truth is that her motive was so weak/minor/petty is hard to fathom a human being could murder so lightly.

Monster.

JMO

 

[Monstradamus]

Do I have this right? EP claimed she wanted a divorce which SP denied her, but when he rightly declared his status as 'separated', she didn't  cheer, elated he was ready to move forward in the divorce process?

But instead got angry and launched right into arguing about child support?

And SP didn't argue it. He agreed to pay it!

So she moved the goalposts again, arguing now that -- in addition to child support -- she expected him to pay tuition/activities/etc as well. Seriously. Arguing that before having a discussion , reaching an agreement on the amount of child support? She sounds like someone who simply wants to argue. (Notable that SP was trying IMO not to engage with her for is very reason.)

Her argument was inane. A legal child support plan would surely have factored for the children's expenses and been calculated accordingly. It was an empty argument, one she invented 8n order t9 force SP's engagement. Negative attention is attention. And when SP held firm (no engagement), she upped the game, drawing his parents into her made up argument. Now SP is a bad dad, shirking his responsibilities, for I guess not paying overages to a child support amount that was never determined.

Remember, her "argument" was that SP was refusing to pay anything more for the children, ab9ve child support which hadn't been determined!!!!

Her in-laws IMO tried to be diplomatic... until EP started attacking  them (if you loved the children, you would....l), then tried to recuse themselves. But, as we've seen, there isn't a healthy boundary anywhere that that EP respects. She wanted them to force SP to engage with her.

That is what her relationship with SP was. Engagement. Maladaptive relationshipping.

(Same IMO with her relationship with her children. Not commending them for being honest, but instead modeling dishonesty, and worse, flipping it. She is honest, they are not (which flies in the face of what they themselves have experienced -- which is exactly how chronic gaslighting eventually erodes one's trust in one's own perception.)

When EP could not get SP's parents to engage in her fabricated fight against SP nor get them to force SP into engagement, she was done with them. They were as SP to her. One and the same.

Why the other couple? This is how cold, petty, indictive EP is -- she invited them (led them to slaughter) as BAIT, to draw the others in, because surely she'd mean them no harm.

That is how casually she willing to kill.

There is constant talk about no motive here. I think the stark truth is that her motive was so weak/minor/petty is hard to fathom a human being could murder so lightly.

Monster.

JMO

There was an official child support plan in place, through government channels. (CSA - Child Support Australia). Erin demanded child support from Simon (previously he had been more than generous, paying for the children's private schooling, extra-curricular activities, etc). Erin applied for Child Support, and then discovered that Simon only had to officially pay her a paltry amount (from memory it was approx. $40/fortnight). It is calculated on a percentage of time of care, and income. She must have earned a lot more money than Simon due to her investments and possibly rental returns, and she had more custody than he did. I believe she had the children during the week, and Simon had them on the weekends.

I'm guessing she became very angry when this happened. A process that she started, but spectacularly backfired on her.

Erin doesn't like to lose, imo.

 

[Megnut]

There was an official child support plan in place, through government channels. (CSA - Child Support Australia). Erin demanded child support from Simon (previously he had been more than generous, paying for the children's private schooling, extra-curricular activities, etc). Erin applied for Child Support, and then discovered that Simon only had to officially pay her a paltry amount (from memory it was approx. $40/fortnight). It is calculated on a percentage of time of care, and income. She must have earned a lot more money than Simon due to her investments and possibly rental returns, and she had more custody than he did. I believe she had the children during the week, and Simon had them on the weekends.

I'm guessing she became very angry when this happened. A process that she started, but spectacularly backfired on her.

Erin doesn't like to lose, imo.

I knew that too. Forgot but you're right -- it was manipulation. And it backfired.

Thank you for correcting MY record.

Motive remains the same. Winning. At all cost.

JMO

 

[Montrealaise]

Ridiculous IMO. Parents give up their rights to be parents when they murder. IMO

"If the imprisoned parent has engaged in behaviors that demonstrate unfitness..." Does that include murdering the children's grandparents and great-aunt?

 

[LinasK]

I struggle to see how any type of meaningful therapy would help these poor children.

Their mother planned, calculated & carried out murdering their grandparents & aunt & allegedly tried numerous times to also murder their father. She has shown no remorse. Even threw the children under the bus when on the stand.

How in the hell do these children get thru this?? I hope she has NO contact with them & by some miracle they can begin to heal, how I have no clue. I also hope that Ali also has no contact with them.

Why would Ali have contact with them if the children are with Simon? I doubt he'd allow that. She has no biological relationship with them.

 

[LinasK]

Yes, you're right. The Daily Mail got it wrong...

I think the confusion is because they only charged her with 3/4 attempts. They didn't charge her for the Beef Stew attempt or the cookies.

 

[drsleuth]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/mushroom-clash-simon-pattersons-courtroom-confrontation-with-erins-lawyer/audio/7c1d334ba7e98c5681c2aee420110337

Mushroom clash: Simon Patterson’s courtroom confrontation with Erin’s lawyer​

He believed his wife tried to kill him – and then had to give evidence in her trial for murdering his parents and aunt. Until today we haven’t been able to report the courtroom clash between Simon Patterson and Colin Mandy SC – but reporter John Ferguson was there.

This episode of The Front is presented and produced by Claire Harvey and edited by Lia Tsamoglou.

 

[LinasK]

I agree. Sure therapy might help somewhat, but there’s only so much it can do. At the end of the day it will massively mess them up regardless, IMO

When you've been victimized, therapy helps you to understand that it wasn't your fault. You did nothing to deserve it. Sports alone (or no therapy) isn't going to cut it for child victims of trauma. What happens when that game is over and they have to go back to real life? Sports is only providing exercise and a temporary mental distraction, it isn't a substitute. (Not picking on you Detective, just piggybacking onto your post).

 

[LinasK]

Do I have this right? EP claimed she wanted a divorce which SP denied her, but when he rightly declared his status as 'separated', she didn't  cheer, elated he was ready to move forward in the divorce process?

But instead got angry and launched right into arguing about child support?

And SP didn't argue it. He agreed to pay it!

So she moved the goalposts again, arguing now that -- in addition to child support -- she expected him to pay tuition/activities/etc as well. Seriously. Arguing that before having a discussion , reaching an agreement on the amount of child support? She sounds like someone who simply wants to argue. (Notable that SP was trying IMO not to engage with her for is very reason.)

Her argument was inane. A legal child support plan would surely have factored for the children's expenses and been calculated accordingly. It was an empty argument, one she invented 8n order t9 force SP's engagement. Negative attention is attention. And when SP held firm (no engagement), she upped the game, drawing his parents into her made up argument. Now SP is a bad dad, shirking his responsibilities, for I guess not paying overages to a child support amount that was never determined.

Remember, her "argument" was that SP was refusing to pay anything more for the children, ab9ve child support which hadn't been determined!!!!

Her in-laws IMO tried to be diplomatic... until EP started attacking  them (if you loved the children, you would....l), then tried to recuse themselves. But, as we've seen, there isn't a healthy boundary anywhere that that EP respects. She wanted them to force SP to engage with her.

That is what her relationship with SP was. Engagement. Maladaptive relationshipping.

(Same IMO with her relationship with her children. Not commending them for being honest, but instead modeling dishonesty, and worse, flipping it. She is honest, they are not (which flies in the face of what they themselves have experienced -- which is exactly how chronic gaslighting eventually erodes one's trust in one's own perception.)

When EP could not get SP's parents to engage in her fabricated fight against SP nor get them to force SP into engagement, she was done with them. They were as SP to her. One and the same.

Why the other couple? This is how cold, petty, indictive EP is -- she invited them (led them to slaughter) as BAIT, to draw the others in, because surely she'd mean them no harm.

That is how casually she willing to kill.

There is constant talk about no motive here. I think the stark truth is that her motive was so weak/minor/petty is hard to fathom a human being could murder so lightly.

Monster.

JMO

I think you nailed her mentality exactly! Great summary.

 

[Monstradamus]

"If the imprisoned parent has engaged in behaviors that demonstrate unfitness..." Does that include murdering the children's grandparents and great-aunt?

One would certainly hope so.
I wouldn't be surprised if Simon pursued through the Court a Parenting Order requesting no visitation, not even supervised.
Erin gave up her rights being a parent when she allegedly poisoned her children's father several times, and when she murdered Simon's parents and aunt, and attempted to murder his uncle. And dared to question the truthfulness of the testimony of her own children at trial.
JMO

 

[JBowie]

(Pay-walled)

Simon Patterson dismissed his wife’s barrister as her ‘mouthpiece’ in a court pre-trial hearing​

This makes very interesting reading. Again, I was quite puzzled by SP's 'mild' performance on the stand but now see the accusations from Mandy that he endured in the pre-trial hearing and was then severely gagged by the judge as to what he could say on the stand.

I now very much look forward to his having his own 'day in court', so to speak.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/simon-patterson-dismissed-his-wifes-barrister-as-her-mouthpiece-in-a-court-pretrial-hearing/news-story/adb770c7456929eff0190e05c382b4e5

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Mushroom clash: Simon Patterson’s courtroom confrontation with Erin’s lawyer​

The Australian

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MrJ]

Looking forward to the books about this case