TweetA Family Court judge has rebuked the federal government for its “inordinate delay” in replacing retiring judges in an extraordinary speech calling for an urgent injection of funds to deal with a growing caseload. Justice Stephen Thackray, who resigned as a judge of the Family Court’s appeals division amid a controversial shakeup of court administration, […]
TweetFAMILY LAW : S.121 Restriction on publication of court proceedings. I have been having an ongoing debate as to whether S.121 applies to cases afoot in the Family Law Courts or does it extend indefinitely for the rest of the natural lives of the parties including the children when they become adults? I, […]
TweetDomestic Violence Statistics & Family Law ~ By Mishka Hudson As the recent chief justice Bryant stated in the Australian published Oct, 2017, I agree the Family Court should be scrapped, but despite her reasoning being delays, my views are that the system is simply not fit for purpose as the majority of Australian cases […]
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 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.
The Government has introduced this new Bill to address problems in the current system with enforcement of Financial Agreements made between couples outside the scope of the court.
The Full Court ordered the husband to pay the wife spousal maintenance of $534 per week for as long as he receives disability insurance payments on the basis of a total disability.
Many people are often armed with the opinions and advice of friends and relatives, a common misconception is a child between the ages of 12-16 should have the choice and be able to make this decision.