Category Archives: Family Law

Family Law, LAW FIRM

Sample Parenting Plan

A parenting plan does not have to take any specific form but it must be in writing and signed and dated by both parents. It must be freely agreed without any threat, duress or coercion.

Sample parenting plans can be found at the back of the Child Support Agency’s Me My Kids and My Ex and Relationships Australia’s Share the Care.

A parenting plan should cover:

  • The child’s place of residence.
  • Time spent with each parent.
  • Time spent with other people, such as grandparents.
  • How parents will share parental responsibility and consult about parenting decisions, such as selection of school.
  • Mode of communication with the parents and other people.
  • Special day arrangements, such as birthdays and holidays.
  • Processes for changing the plan.
  • Any other issue about parental responsibility or care, welfare or development of the child.

The agreement is voluntary and not enforceable. If the parties cannot reach agreement they can make an application for orders from the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

For further information we recommend you go to:

Family Relationships Online, Parenting Plan Guide

Family Relationships Online, An Introduction to Parenting Plans

Legal Aid Victoria, Parenting Arrangements and Child Contact

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Family Law, LAW FIRM

What Does a Parenting Plan Look Like?

A parenting plan does not have to take any specific form but it must be in writing and signed and dated by both parents. It must be freely agreed without any threat, duress or coercion.

Sample parenting plans can be found at the back of the Child Support Agency’s Me My Kids and My Ex and Relationships Australia’s Share the Care.

A parenting plan should cover:

  • The child’s place of residence.
  • Time spent with each parent.
  • Time spent with other people, such as grandparents.
  • How parents will share parental responsibility and consult about parenting decisions, such as selection of school.
  • Mode of communication with the parents and other people.
  • Special day arrangements, such as birthdays and holidays.
  • Processes for changing the plan.
  • Any other issue about parental responsibility or care, welfare or development of the child.

The agreement is voluntary and not enforceable. If the parties cannot reach agreement they can make an application for orders from the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

For further information we recommend you go to:

Family Relationships Online, Parenting Plan Guide

Family Relationships Online, An Introduction to Parenting Plans

Legal Aid Victoria, Parenting Arrangements and Child Contact

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Children, Family Law, LAW FIRM

U v U [2002] HCA 36 | 5 September 2002

ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2005, the High Court of Australia delivered U v U [2002] HCA 36; 211 CLR 238; 191 ALR 289; 76 ALJR 1416 (5 September 2002).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/36.html

An Indian mother and residential parent of a 9 year old girl applied to relocate to Mumbai where she had good employment prospects and family.

The Family Court rejected the application and appeals were dismissed by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia and High Court of Australia.

The High Court made the following observations about relocation cases:

  • The court, not the parties, defines the issues. The parties do not define the issues because they have failed to agree to a parenting plan. The court is not bound by the polarised options of the parties but instead must decide what is in the child’s best interests.
  • There is no onus of the parent seeking relocation to show compelling reasons for relocation.
  • Relocation disputes are unlikely to produce perfect solutions because of the wide range of predictions and discretion to make findings.
  • It should be assumed that the non-resident parent ought not relocate to be nearer the relocating resident and child; and it should not be assumed that the residential parent should not subordinate her wish to relocate to the wish of the non-resident parent to remain in the place of his or her choosing.
  • It is self-evident that, except in cases of abusive relationships, it is in the child’s best interests to develop good relationships with both parents.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Family Law, LAW FIRM, Uncategorized

Ames & Ames [2009] FamCA 825 | 4 September 2009

ON 4 SEPTEMBER 2009, the Family Court of Australia delivered Ames & Ames [2009] FamCA 825 (4 September 2009)

A father obtained a paternity test of his son without obtaining the mother’s consent. The father had lied to the son about his reasons for taking the swab.

Justice Dawes found that the specimen had been obtained improperly and used her discretion under s138EA to refuse to admit into evidence the laboratory report because of the threat of the integrity of the process as well as the improper way in which the specimen had been obtained.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Family Law, LAW FIRM

Taylor v Taylor [1979] HCA 38 | 22 August 1979

ON 22 AUGUST 1979, the High Court of Australia delivered Taylor v Taylor [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1979/38.html

A husband failed to appear in family law proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW due to a misunderstanding on the part of his legal representative. In his absence, the court made orders dissolving the marriage and transferring the matrimonial home to the wife. Once the husband became aware of the orders, he made an application to the newly established Family Court seeking variation of the Supreme Court orders to the effect that the matrimonial home be sold and the net proceeds be divided between he and his wife. On the day of the application, the wife’s legal representatives mistakenly attended the Family Law Division of the Supreme Court rather than the Family Court. In the absence of the wife, orders were made by Hogan J of the Family Court in accordance with the relief sought by the husband. The wife then appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, who allowed the appeal ruling that Hogan J did not possess the statutory power to amend the Supreme Court’s orders.

The High Court allowed an appeal, ordering that the previous orders be set aside and that there be a re-hearing of the matter.

The High Court held that a court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders where it is in the interests of justice to do so.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Family Law, LAW FIRM

16th National Family Law Conference: 7-10 October

The Law Council of Australia 16th National Family Law Conference will be held at the Hilton Hotel Sydney from 7-10 October.

Australian speakers include:

  • The Hon. George Brandis QC, Commonwealth Attorney-General
  • The Hon. Justice Diana Bryant AO, Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia.
  • The Hon. Justice John Pascoe AO CVO, Chief Judge of Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
  • The Hon. Justice Paul Le Gay Brereton AM RFD, Supreme Court of NSW.
  • Ms Megan Mitchell, National Children’s Commissioner.
  • Prof. George Williams AO, Anthony Mason Professor, University of NSW.

International speakers include:

  • Justice Paul Ryan, High Court, Ireland.
  • Prof. Richard Susskind OBE.

All members of the legal profession are invited to attend.

For more information go to http://www.familylawconference2014.com.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Bias, Family Law, Judges, LAW FIRM

Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39 | 30 July 1986

ON 30 JULY 1986, the High Court of Australia delivered Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342 (30 July 1986).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/39.html

During a luncheon adjournment, a Family Court counsellor went to the chambers of a judge and had a private conversation in which she expressed certain things including a recommendation that separate representation being granted to the child. Her views were adverse to the husband. Counsel for the parties were then invited to the judges chambers where they were introduced to the counsellor and informed of her recommendations. Comments made by the judge indicated that there had been a private conversation between the counsellor and the judge. After lunch, counsel for the wife made an application seeking appointment of separate representation for the child. The husband asked for the judge to disqualify himself.

The High Court held that it was reasonable for the husband to apprehend that the judge might not bring and impartial or unprejudiced mind to the matter having had a private conversation with the counsellor who had formed an adverse view of him. On that basis, the court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition directing that the judge be prohibited from proceeding further with the matter.

The case is notable for Justice Mason’s warning that judicial officers are required to discharge their obligations unless disqualified to do so. They must not readily accept suggestions of appearance of bias, otherwise parties might be encouraged to seek their disqualification, without justification, for strategic reasons.

Per Mason J at 352:

“There may be many situations in which previous decisions of a judicial officer on issues of fact and law may generate an expectation that he is likely to decide issues in a particular case adversely to one of the parties. But this does not mean either that he will approach the issues in that case otherwise than with an impartial and unprejudiced mind in the sense in which that expression is used in the authorities or that his previous decisions provide an acceptable basis for inferring that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will approach the issues in this way.
…
Although it is important that justice must be seen to be done, it is equally important that judicial officers discharge their duty to sit and do not, by acceding too readily to suggestions of appearance of bias, encourage parties to believe that by seeking the disqualification of a judge, they will have their case tried by someone thought to be more likely to decide the case in their favour.”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Courts and Tribunals, De Facto relationships, Family Law

Family Court of Australia

The Family Court of Australia http://www.familycourt.gov.au/ was established under the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/  to specifically deal with marriage, divorce, matrimonial causes, parental responsibility for children and financial matters arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships and certain other matters.

The court commenced on 5 January 1976. It is constituted by a Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal Division, Family Court of Western Australia and Judicial Committees.

Since 5 July 2004, the Chief Justice has been Diana Bryant AO.

The Chief judge makes rules delegating the judicial powers to Registrars and non-judicial officers.

The court provides both judicial and administrative procedures for the determination of disputes.

The court has registries in all states apart from Western Australia, which has it’s own Family Court. All of the registries support the family law jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court.

At first instance, the court hears matters before single judges. The court also has an appeal division (Full Court) which hears appeals from first instance decisions of the Family Court and the family jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court.

In the Sydney metropolitan area, the Family Court has registries at:

  • Sydney Family Law Registry: Lionel Bowen Building, 97-99 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000, tel 1300 352 000.
  • Parramatta Family Law Registry: Garfield Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 1-3 George Street, Parramatta NSW 2150, tel 1300 352 000.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Family Law

DJM and JLM [1998] FamCA 97 | 15 July 1998

ON 15 JULY 1998, the Family Court of Australia delivered DJM and JLM [1998] FamCA 97 (15 July 1998).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1998/97.html

The court considered a number of issues including the determination of the pool of assets and how to treat a post separation change of employment resulting in a voluntary reduction of earnings less than one’s earning capacity.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

De Facto relationships, Family Law

Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208 | 10 July 2001

ON 10 JULY 2001, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208 (10 July 2001).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2001/208.html

The parties had been involved in a series of de facto relationships with each other over a 32 year period. The Supreme Court made a property adjustment order that took into consideration contributions made only in the last period of cohabitation.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that contributions made prior to the last period of cohabitation could be considered.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088