TweetWhen a relationship breaks down and there are children and property involved the complex web known as family law for the parent who doesn’t have the money to hire a lawyer and doesn’t qualify for legal aid can be a heart breaking and soul destroying process where people lose faith in the entire system of […]
This submission partially responds to the request by the Royal Commission into Family Violence Summary , (as published by WLSV, 2016), that the Australian Institute of Family Studies, (AIFS) is provided with a framework to conduct research into the practices and assessments of family consultants.
This author addresses the fifth terms of reference and suggests that many of the proposals could be applicable for further critical analysis of anyone performing a similar function to family consultants, inclusive of court report writers, assessors, family dispute practitioners, and child protection workers/assessors by for example, the AIFS.
Past reports have often been more heavily weighted on the legal professional’s side rather than the victims’ voice. Looking for answers within a struggling system weighted with the very practitioners who are complicit and benefit from the current service delivery, limits public confidence with some conclusions from historic relevant inquiries. The current inquiry’s invitation for the victims and court participant’s voice via the questionnaire is a welcome inclusion of a balanced perspective.
The family and children’s courts have an opportunity to protect families from violence. To do this effectively the health and safety of victims of violence must be prioritised through protective legislation. The most dangerous cases are where contested cases are used to control and punish the protective parent as an extension of violence. These cases need to be managed much differently to consented proceedings if we are to efficiently protect against family violence.
The family courts are in current crisis because they are regarding myths and opinions over sound research and fact. They are not endorsing standards or principles or employing practices which meaningfully identify and interpret the truth of the matter. Family violence has been grossly mismanaged through the court system as it stands, with horrific consequences.
The Family Court Act1 provides that the Court must consider the best interests of the Child at all times, when exercising this legislative authority, s.60CA2 the Act states: In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests is outlined in Section 60(CC)3, this paper will examine the position of the Court when it acts as a parent, therefore 60(CC) Sub Section 2(b)4 is not invoked, meaning that there is no suggestion in this scenario of the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence, just an ordinary loving home, perhaps with parents who can not agree on this issue and need the Court to decide.
the defendant must adduce proofs that raise a “more probable than not” inference in favour of what it urges; there must be a reasonable and definite inference available on the whole of the evidence; there must be something more than conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability. And in assessing whether the defendant has satisfied its obligation, the Court must take into account the gravity of the matters alleged….
Without consent there is no “Doctor-Patient” relationship in law.
The Informed Consent Doctrine is the cornerstone of the Doctor-Patient relationship. It has altering the attitudes of a new generation of Doctors towards their patients, and its requirements are now reflected in consent forms that heath care institutions require patients to sign upon admission and before various procedures are performed.
Setting the Boundaries for the Doctor-Patient Relationship…..
There is an interesting matter that I have been confronted with.
A patient goes to see a Medical Practitioner (who is a Doctor registered with the Australian Medical Board) about obtaining the Doctors written recommendation as to the start date for a treatment program to begin for her son.
In this case there were multiple injections involving 11 different types of medication that would be injected into the body of the 18 month old child. The mother was concerned about a scientific report she read in the The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which is a weekly medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is among the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals as well as the oldest continuously published one.
The Doctor would not give her opportunity to discuss science and shut her down saying “we are not obliged to provide scientific evidence as per legal advice (Citing name of Insurer). So now that science was off the table in things to discuss, the Doctor then discussed the risk versus benefit of the treatment, saying things can go wrong, allergic and other reactions can occur however these risks are accepted by the Australian Government who approved the treatment through the Therapeutic Goods Administration and “mainstream medical literature” says the risks are “vastly outweighed by the potential benefits.”
FAMILY LAW – Children – history of mother not supporting child’s relationship with father – parental capacity – child only able to benefit from relationship with both parents if living with father.
If EVERYBODY followed this method, a MASS ACTION which is Co-ordinated, each step of the way the team analyses results from each response, collaborating together in refining each persons unique complaint as a hive. This kind of action is virtually unstoppable.
If you have a Criminal case in a lower Court as low down as the Magistrates Court (VCAT,NCAT, QCAT etc do not apply) AND you raise a Constitutional Matter AND the AG’s either fail to reply or reply in the negative for intervention (thinking your case is too trivial or lacks merit) THEN not only can the Magistrates Court decide the matter but the Prosecution CAN NOT APPEAL it unless granted Special Leave by the High Court.
The husband applied for the discharge of that order. He relied on new evidence of the father’s testamentary “wish[es]” that, first, the wife should receive from the Group a lump sum cash payment of $16,500,000 in the event of her divorce from the husband, and, second, that the wife should receive from the Group an annual payment of $150,000 until the date (if any) of the lump sum payment.