Response 881806096

Back to Response listing

Schedule 1: Amendments to the framework for making parenting orders

Do you have any feedback on the two objects included in the proposed redraft of section 60B?

I think the demise of the 'child's best interest' buzz word in general is a good thing, as it is something that is used in detrimental fashion too often.
The rights of the child are of upmost importance - I would also suggest that a child needs as equal influence from both biological parents as possible. I would like to think a goal of equal time is still something sought if possible, practical and safe.

Do you have any other comments on the impact of the proposed simplification of section 60B?

I think there needs to be an outlined statement that shared responsibility is mutually beneficial to both parents and child, and is still a goal. I think this needs to be known as a goal from the courts in order to promote negotiation between conflicting sides of cases. If the end goal is already laid out, it provides a definite outcome that should promote resolution prior.

Do you have any feedback on the wording of the best interests factors, including whether any particular wording could have adverse or unintended consequences?

Honoring the role of both parents should be promoted. Diminishing the ability to snatch and hold onto a child without due cause, needs to be addressed. Provocative actions need to be dealt with, as a matter of best interest.

Do you have any comments on the simplified structure of the section, including the removal of 'primary considerations' and 'additional considerations'?

I still feel equality is just - and as such, if equal time is permissible, it should be encouraged. Ramifications for the denial of permissible equal time should also be put forward.

Do you have any other feedback or comments on the proposed redraft of section 60CC?

Perceived injustice and inequality is unfortunately embedded within the communities view of the Family Court system. I think it could be address with clear outlined goals that state a clear objective of equality and justice.

Do you have any comments on the removal of obligations on legal practitioners, family dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants or family counsellors to encourage parents to consider particular time arrangements? Will this amendment have any other consequences and/or significantly impact your work?

Legal practitioners need to be put under the spotlight. Victims of alienation (children and parents) need to see justice and something that acknowledges the very real issue.

With the removal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, do any elements of section 65DAC (which sets out how an order providing for shared parental responsibility is taken to be required to be made jointly, including the requirement to consult the other person on the issue) need to be retained?

There is no justifiable excuse for removing children from loving parents beyond 50/50 without a negotiated agreement. Anything less than 5050 before court arrangements needs serious scrutiny as to why. Realistically seeking just and equitable outcomes needs to be the aim. Criminalisation of actions and enforcement of shared care as a step 1 is my suggestion.

Does the proposed section 65DAAA accurately reflect the common law rule in Rice and Asplund? If not, what are your suggestions for more accurately capturing the rule?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

Do you support including the list of considerations that courts may consider in determining whether final parenting orders should be reconsidered? Does the choice of considerations appropriately reflect current case law?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain
Equality and justice is paramount for all (including the child), is my stance. Certain actions need to be criminalised with real consequences for alienating parents.

Schedule 2: Enforcement of child-related orders

Do you think the proposed changes make Division 13A easier to understand?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

Do you have any feedback on the new cost order provisions in proposed section 70NBE?

No

Should proposed subparagraph 70NBE(1)(b)(i) also allow a court to consider awarding costs against a complainant in a situation where the court does not make a finding either way about whether the order was contravened?

Please select one item
Yes
No

Do you agree with the approach taken in proposed new subsection 70NBA(1) (which does not limit the circumstances in which a court may deal with a contravention of child-related orders that arises in proceedings) or should 70NBA(1) specify that the court may only consider a contravention matter on application from a party?

Seems ok, but make up time should also be considered (almost guaranteed as a preventative) regardless of in-place court orders. A goal of 50/50 needs to be met as it draws a line in the sand and will encourage negotiation by those who only want to drag the system and prevent the unknowns from plaguing the system with toxicity.

Do you have any other feedback or comments on the amendments in Schedule 2?

'Circumstances in which a person contravenes a child-related order' should essentially be universal prior to any court orders. These are the rights of the child (convention on the rights of the child) and the rights of the parent.

Schedule 3: Definition of ‘member of the family’ and ‘relative’

Do you have any feedback on the wording of the definitions of ‘relative’ and ‘member of the family’ or the approach to implementing ALRC recommendation 9?

No

Do you have any concerns about the flow-on implications of amending the definitions of 'relative' and 'member of the family', including on the disclosure obligations of parties?

As someone who received threats from an Ex partners father, I would consider this family violence. If the court is going to recognize this as such, this is a good thing. I imagine it is quite common.

In section 2 of the Bill, it is proposed that these amendments commence the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent, in contrast to most of the other changes which would not commence for 6 months. Given the benefit to children of widening consideration of family violence this is appropriate – do you agree?

Please select one item
Yes
No

Do you have any other feedback or comments on the amendments in this Schedule?

Time should be given for reality of the amendments to kick in. Hard introduction, however, some time after I feel is best - perhaps 3 months.

Schedule 4: Independent Children’s Lawyers

Do you agree that the proposed requirement in subsection 68LA(5A) that an ICL must meet with a child and provide the child with an opportunity to express a view, and the exceptions in subsections 68LA(5B) and (5C), achieves the objectives of providing certainty of an ICL’s role in engaging with children, while retaining ICL discretion in appropriate circumstances?

Not a big fan of lawyers playing this role. Their moral compass is skew at best. Children should be able to express their view, but the reality of holding a 5yr olds words against them to deny them certain access to either parent is not appealing.

Does the amendment strike the right balance between ensuring children have a say and can exercise their rights to participate, while also protecting those that could be harmed by being subjected to family law proceedings?

I would hate for my words as a 5 year old to be used to justify time away from either parent. I fear that would cause psychological harm later in life.

Are there any additional exceptional circumstances that should be considered for listing in subsection 68LA(5C)?

Seems well intended.

Do you consider there may be adverse or unintended consequences as a result of the proposed repeal of subsection 68L(3)?

Not sure.

Do you anticipate this amendment will significantly impact your work? If so, how?

No.

Do you have any other feedback or comments on the proposed repeal of subsection 68L(3)?

No.

Schedule 5: Case management and procedure

Would the introduction of harmful proceedings orders address the need highlighted by Marsden & Winch and by the ALRC?

I think both parents can develop ptsd, and the procedures do need addressing. The ethical practice of law practitioners is what needs immediate scrutiny however. There is too much confidentiality protecting unethical practice. A line needs to be drawn and opposing clients need to be viewed as humans by legal practitioners, first and foremost.

Do the proposed harmful proceeding orders, as drafted, appropriately balance procedural fairness considerations?

Seem ok. Repeating though, the legal practitioners need to be held professionally accountable and need to endorse a 'duty of care' for those they are opposing.

Do you have any feedback on the tests to be applied by the court in considering whether to make a harmful proceedings order, or to grant leave for the affected party to institute further proceedings?

No.

Do you have any views about whether the introduction of harmful proceedings orders, which is intended to protect vulnerable parties from vexatious litigants, would cause adverse consequences for a vulnerable party? If yes, do you have any suggestions on how this could be mitigated?

Ethics in legal practitioners - for real, not just as a throw away line. These professionals are supposed to be intelligent enough to understand the law, they need to super impose decency among their dealings. It would also assist with the mental health toll experienced within the industry.

Do you have any feedback on the proposed wording of the expanded overarching purpose of family law practice and procedure?

No.

Schedule 6: Protecting sensitive information

Do you have any views on the approach taken in requiring a party to seek leave of court to adduce evidence of a protected confidence?

Nil

What are your views on the test for determining whether evidence of protected confidences should be admitted? Should the onus be on the party seeking to admit the evidence?

Yes

Should a person be able to consent to the admission of evidence of a protected confidence relating to their own treatment?

Yes

Schedule 7: Communications of details of family law proceedings

Is Part XIVB easier to understand than the current section 121?

Additions to the Family Law Act that would go along way toward justice would be provisions that require the FC to collect and publish data for accountability and to allow journalists into the court to report on cases (keeping parties anonymous of course).

Are there elements of Part XIVB that could be further clarified? How would you clarify them?

Additions to the Family Law Act that would go along way toward justice would be provisions that require the FC to collect and publish data for accountability and to allow journalists into the court to report on cases (keeping parties anonymous of course).

Does the simplified outline at section 114N clearly explain the offences?

Additions to the Family Law Act that would go along way toward justice would be provisions that require the FC to collect and publish data for accountability and to allow journalists into the court to report on cases (keeping parties anonymous of course).

Does section 114S help clarify what constitutes a communication to the public?

Additons to the Family Law Act that would go along way toward justice would be provisions that require the FC to collect and publish data for accountability and to allow journalists into the court to report on cases (keeping parties annonomous of course).

Schedule 8: Establishing regulatory schemes for family law professionals

Do the definitions effectively capture the range of family reports prepared for the family courts, particularly by family consultants and single expert witnesses?

Fine

Are the proposed matters for which regulations may be made sufficient and comprehensive to improve the competency and accountability of family report writers and the quality of the family reports they produce?

There needs to be more generic language used. In my instance - I was identified within a report as a member of the Australian Armed Forces....There is no such thing, and it gives off an aggressive tone which hinders my counters to false accusations of family violence. The Australian Defence Force is the correct term and it is a Commonwealth Agency. These semantics matter.

Commencement of the changes

Is a six-month lead in time appropriate for these changes? Should they commence sooner?

These proposed changes are in contrast to the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) own report that states both mothers and fathers were happy with shared care arrnagements and both were less likely to report concerns of safety for the children or themselves. Safety appears to be a ruse. There needs to be deeper invesitgations and research conducted before any changes.

Are the proposed application provisions appropriate for these changes?

No.