Children Vaccination Update in Australia
In the midst of the global Coronavirus pandemic, the Australian Government recently announced that children aged 5 to 11 are now eligible to receive the Covid-19 vaccinations, should their parents wish for them to. But what happens if you and your former partner cannot agree on whether or not to vaccinate your child? The Covid-19 vaccinations are administered in 2 doses, given 8 weeks apart. The time between the vaccinations can be reduced to 3 weeks if special circumstances permit. The purpose of the Covid-19 vaccinations are to reduce the severity of the illness if contracted. They cannot prevent the illness and some side effects can be experienced from the vaccination itself. Parental Responsibility on Children Vaccination Vaccinations can be a topical parenting issue for a number of reasons. Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Commonwealth) making serious decisions about a child’s health falls within the realm of parental responsibility. In most cases, parents will have what is typically referred to as Equal Shared Parental Responsibility – which means both parents get a say in determining any major medical decisions that may be required for their child. Under the legislation, parents must consult with each other and make a genuine effort and attempt to reach an agreement in relation to any major long-term issues in dispute concerning their joint parental responsibility (See section 61da(1) ). In facilitating such discussions, parents are encouraged to seek medical advice from their child’s General Practitioner or Pediatrician specific to the circumstances of that child and the vaccination in question. Once the information has been obtained, parents might like to consider attending Mediation or some form of alternative dispute resolution (rather than going straight to Court as this is a requirement anyway) to talk further about their concerns with the other party with a neutral third party mediator facilitating such discussions. If ultimately the parents cannot agree on whether or not to vaccinate their child, then an Application can be made by either parent (provided a Section 60I Mediation Certificate has been obtained or a special circumstance exemption is sought) to the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia seeking a parenting Order for their child/ren to be vaccinated or not. The Court has, in the past, made an Order requiring a child to be vaccinated and immunised. (See cases of Mains (2011) and Covington (2021). The first Case of Mains v Redden involved a Mother who objected to the child receiving certain immunisations that the Father wished for the child to receive after a consideration of side effects (which she herself experienced as a child). The Court ultimately found that they had the power to make any parenting Order it believed to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case having regard to the best interests of the child in question. The Court supported that the child be immunised at the first instance of the matter. This was later reaffirmed by the judgment in the High Court case of Covington and Covington where the Mother appealed against Orders made by the Court for the child to receive the vaccination and immunization arguing that the Court only has the power to make a binding parenting Order with the mutual consent of both parents otherwise this breached section 51 of the Constitution. The Court did not accept the Mother’s argument and the original decision was ultimately upheld. If you and your spouse have different views the issues of Children Vaccination and immunisations, contact the team of Brisbane Family Law at James Noble Law today to arrange a free, no-obligation 20 minute consultation to discuss this issue and your particular circumstances further. To schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
For more information, please visit our website: Children Vaccination
0 Comments
In a recent Appeal of a decision of the Family Court of Australia, the Appellant Court reviewed orders between the parties in respect of their two children under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975.
The orders made provision for the children to live with the mother and for her to have sole parental responsibility for them. Relevantly, however, the orders also made provision for the children to spend time and communicate with the father and required the parties to ensure the children’s consultation with a psychologist appointed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Appeal against parenting orders The orders which require the children to spend time and communicate with the father were intended to resolve those issues until that discrete aspect of the parties’ dispute was given further consideration about six months ahead. While the orders did not therefore finally determine those issues, it is clear from the reasons for judgment that the primary Judge was only intending to contemplate the expansion, not constriction, of the children’s interaction with the father after December 2021. The mother appealed this judgment. The central challenge in the appeal was that the primary judge erred at law when assessing the risk of harm posed to the elder child as “low” and to the younger child as “even less [than low]” as a consequence of their prospective sexual abuse by the father or a member of his family and, further, by finding the children would not be exposed to an unacceptable risk of harm by spending unsupervised time with the father. The mother’s appeal was supported by the ICL, but resisted by the father. For the reasons which follow, the appeal was dismissed. Appeal against parenting orders dismissed The mother made allegations about the father’s physical (but not sexual) abuse of the elder child, causing the doctor to make a mandatory report of her allegations to the New South Wales child welfare authority. As a consequence, the elder child was then referred to a psychologist for counselling. The mother withholding child from father Australia altogether, ending the arrangement she initially implemented for the children to spend time with the father if supervised by the maternal grandfather. Relying upon statements made by the elder child to the mother and the maternal grandmother, the mother concluded he had been sexually abused by the father. Consequently, the mother brought an urgent application to immediately suspend the existing interim orders and stop the children from spending supervised time with him. Those orders were suspended in May 2019. Neither child saw the father after that. The trial was heard by the primary Judge over five days in August 2020, with the pre-eminent issue being whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. The mother’s case was that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children because, historically, he had physically and sexually abused the elder child. She sought an order mandating that the children spend “no time” with the father because, as she contended, it was more important to protect them from the risk of harm he posed than to ensure they derive benefit from their relationships with him The father’s case was that he had not physically or sexually abused either child, he had always enjoyed close and loving relationships with both children, and their interests were best served by immediate re-introduction to him to avert any detriment to their emotional welfare, which would otherwise occur if their estrangement was allowed to continue. Realising the children had been withheld from him for well over a year by the time of trial, the father proposed their staged re-introduction to him, beginning with supervision so as to abate any anxiety which may be experienced by either them or the mother. He also suggested, as an alternative option, that the orders be reviewed some six to twelve months ahead, after the family therapy proposed by the ICL had begun. The orders made by the primary Judge reflected the primary Judge’s acceptance of the father’s case and rejection of the mother’s case. Specifically, the primary judge rejected the proposition that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. In the Magellan Family Report the family consultant said as follows: [The elder child] has reportedly made a number of statements since March 2019, which suggest that he has been sexually abused by [the father]. When a young child makes a disclosure indicative of sexual abuse, it is always important to consider what the child has said, and the context for the child making such a disclosure. This is important as children do not have a mastery of language, and a simplistic view of the world, and they may thus not be able to provide and accurate description of events, and this may give way to misinformation. Furthermore, children can also be vulnerable to suggestions, and they may also be inclined to try to please adults, and this means that children can sometimes agree with false statements or make false statements they have been lead to believe an adult wishes to hear. For example, if an adult asks a child whether a particular person has touched them inappropriately, a child may be vulnerable to answering in the affirmative, even if the event has not taken place, particularly if they have been asked this question a number of times and the adult asking has not appeared contented by their pervious responses. There is also the possibility that a child can come to believe that something has occurred if they are repeatedly questioned about certain events, or repeatedly asked to say that certain events occurred. While it is sometimes difficult to determine whether child sexual abuse has occurred because a child has provided an inadequate description about what has occurred, the statements reportedly made by [the elder child] seem to be very clear disclosures that sexual abuse has occurred. Notably, [the elder child] has reportedly clearly stated, amongst other things, that his father and his [the paternal uncle], put their penises in his bottom and, on a separate occasion, that his father put [the elder child’s] hand on his [the father’s] penis and in his [the father’s] bottom. From the information provided by [various witnesses] in affidavit material, [the elder child’s] statements regarding sexual abuse were unprompted. It does not appear that [the elder child] was ever asked directly by any of them whether [the father] engaged in sexual acts. From what is detailed in affidavit material, it does not appear that [the elder child] was subjected to any probing utterances that might have lead him to make a false statement about sexual abuse. If it is accepted that [the elder child] has disclosed information in the manner stated, there would be little concern that [the elder child] has inadvertently been influenced to make these statements. It is, however noted that it might very well have been difficult for [the witnesses], to recall exactly what [the elder child] said at the time of [the elder child] allegedly disclosing such information. It is also noted that in the Project Magellan report that [the maternal grandmother] acknowledged some of her questions to [the elder child] were leading. In one discussion with [the elder child], fantasy was used in an attempt to support [the elder child] to talk about disclosures. If this has occurred, there may be some question about whether [the elder child] has accurately stated what has occurred, or whether he may have been inadvertently led to make a false disclosure. Consideration about whether [the elder child] might have inadvertently been led to make a false disclosure of sexual may need to account for what leading questions and fantasy scenario [the maternal grandmother] might have put to [the elder child], and when this occurred. Unfortunately, the Family consultant was unable to find any further information about this in what was able to be viewed of the DCJ file. The multitude and variety of statements made by [the elder child] to various people, however, might ward against believing that [the elder child] has been inadvertently caused to affirm that sexual abuse has occurred. (Emphasis added) The primary Judge’s decision was appealed by the mother primary Judge’s decision was appealedThe question of whether or not an unacceptable risk of harm is posed to a child is determined by application of the civil standard of proof under s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 .. In determining what orders will be in a child’s best interests the Court must consider the matters in s 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. When considering the matters in s 60CC(2) the Court is required to place greater weight on the need to protect a child from physical or psychological harm, and from being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. Unacceptable risk requires two separate steps. Is there a risk, and is it unacceptable? The concentration is upon both the nature and the degree of risk in the particular case. Its formulation is all about balance. In some cases a risk is ‘acceptable’ when balanced against other factors and other orders. The object of safeguards is to convert an unacceptable situation to an acceptable one where that is feasible and is of ‘benefit to the child’. Since the children had not seen the father for about two years preceding the pronouncement of the appealed orders, the primary judge was satisfied the children should be initially supervised with the father to reassure the mother, to support their re-introduction to him (which would also be facilitated by family therapy with a psychologist) and to restrict the chance of further allegations being made against him. The Appellant Court decided that the mother failed to establish her case that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children The appeal will be dismissed. If you need help, please contact the brisbane family lawyers team at James Noble Law today for a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation. Schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
For more information, please visit the main article source: Appeal Against Parenting Orders The adoption process in Queensland is managed by the government organisation Adoption Services Queensland.
A child’s Stepparent (being either married or in a de facto relationship with the parent of the child) can make an application to adopt the child if they can satisfy the below criteria:
Both biological parents of the child must voluntarily consent to the adoption before the Children’s Court can make the adoption order. If the biological Father’s identity is not known, Adoption Services Queensland must try to establish the Father’s identity and locate the Father to give him notice of the proposed adoption and information relating to the same. There are some circumstances where the Children’s Court can dispense with the need for both biological parents to consent to the child’s adoption. This commonly includes where a parent unreasonably or unnecessarily withholds their consent or the parent does not have the capacity to consent to the adoption. If the child is aged 17, a separate process is involved provided the adoption can be completed before the child turns 18 years of age. For more information about the process of Adoption QLD, contact the team at James Noble Law today for a FREE, no-obligation 20-minute consultation. To schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
Binding Child Support Agreement or Limited Child Support Agreement?
When parents reach an agreement in relation to child support, there are two options available to formalise that agreement. Those two options are:
What is the Binding Child Support Agreement? A Binding Child Support Agreement is a contract between the parents which sets out the terms of the agreement they have reached in relation to the amount of child support for their child/children and how that child support will be paid. The main aim of a Binding Child Support Agreement is to formalise the future child support payable (usually until the children are all 18 years old or until they complete their final year of grade 12) and for the parents to have certainty in this respect. Before entering into Binding Child Support Agreements, both parents must obtain independent legal advice from a solicitor before entering into a Binding Child Support Agreement. What is a Limited Child Support Agreement? A Limited Child Support Agreement is a less formal written agreement that can be entered into between parents in relation to formalising future child support. It is in the same format as a Binding Financial Agreement, but does not require independent legal advice and has some different rules that apply. For a Limited Child Support Agreement, there must be a child support administrative assessment in place and the amount payable in child support must be equal to or more than the current child support assessment. Limited Child Support Agreements can be set aside or varied in the following circumstances:
To decide what child support agreement best suits you and your circumstances, contact the team at James Noble Law today and book a FREE 20-minute initial consultation. If you are considering changing your child’s name in QLD (Queensland), then contact the team at James Noble Law today for a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation today to schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
Are you considering changing your child’s name?
For children born or adopted in Queensland, parents may change their child’s first name once before the child turns one (1) and parents may change their child’s family name no more than once every twelve (12) months. Both parents must consent to the change of name and the child himself or herself must consent to the change, if they are over twelve (12) years of age. To change your child’s name there are a number of requirements that must be met. Both parents must provide a certified copy of their ID and supporting evidence for any previous change of names (i.e. marriage certificate, change of name certificate, etc). A detailed reason for changing the child’s name must also be provided. A prohibited name will not be approved. If only one parent wishes for changing a child’s name in QLD, then additional evidence will be required. For example, if one parent is deceased then a copy of their Death Certificate is required. If both parents are in dispute as to the child’s change of name, then a Magistrates Court Order providing for the change of name is required. It is important to note that a parent with sole parental responsibility pursuant to a Court Order cannot apply to change their child’s name unless the Order specifically states that the parent can change the child’s name. The new name must be included in the Order. If you are considering changing your child’s name in QLD (Queensland), then contact the team at James Noble Law today for a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation today to schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
For more information, please visit the main article source: Changing Your Child’s Name Children Family Court Jurisdiction: In a recent decision in the Family Court found that it was very regrettably that the mother did not support the child being vaccinated.
The Court considered that her opposition to the child being vaccinated, as the child’s principal carer, would likely complicate the process and make it much more difficult for the child. The Court considered that in these circumstances it would be counter-productive for the mother to accompany the father and the child to any medical appointments concerned with the vaccinations. The Court considered that the mother’s opposition to the vaccinations would be likely to cause distress to the child. The Judge stated, “The mother’s position in this regard is to be lamented. It flies in the face of the evidence of Associate Professor D, a consultant pediatrician and infectious diseases physician at B Hospital who had prepared a report dated 1 December 2019 which was in evidence at the trial. The mother’s position concerning vaccination is not child-focused, and it is not in the best interests of the child. It is not based on evidence, and on the evidence of Associate Professor D it may expose the child to harm.” 2. The Court made Orders which would allow the child to be vaccinated in the following terms: (a) That the child be collected by the Father from the Child Minding Centre of the Family Court of Australia (b) The child live with her Father. (c) The child spend time with her Mother each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school (d) The arrangement provided to continue until the third phase of the vaccinations have be completed, whichever date is sooner. (e) Following the date referred to in Order 2 (d), the parenting arrangement return to that as indicated in the Final Orders dated 3 December as if it were Week One of the cycle. (f) In the event the Mother fails to return the child to the Father as provided for herein, the Father have liberty to contact the Chambers of the Judge by way of email seeking an urgent recovery order be administered in Chambers. (3) The Father be at liberty to provide a copy of these Orders to: (a) The child’s school (b) The child’s medical practitioners; (4) In the event the Mother fails to make the child available for collection pursuant to the Orders, the child be delivered to the care of her Father, a recovery order do issue authorising/directing the Marshall, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the police forces of all the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia with such assistances as may be required and if necessary, by force: The Judge said that if the mother is able to contain her own fears in relation to the child being vaccinated and support the orders that have been made, it may be expected that the father will involve her in the process as he had said he will do. That would unquestionably be in the child’s best interests, but it will require the mother to set her apprehensions to one side. It is to be hoped that she will be able to do so. Prior to the Orders being made, the mother had continued actively to oppose the program of vaccinations which has been approved. The mother had opposed the program to such an extent that there was evidence that she had worked the child into a state of near hysteria such that she refused to go into the father’s care in accordance with the arrangements that the parties agreed. The father had organised a sensible program of vaccinations for the child supervised by appropriately qualified medical professionals at a Hospital and had informed the mother of his proposals, but she ignored these communications. Instead, she commenced separate proceedings. She made an application for an interlocutory injunction in the High Court seeking to restrain the commencement of the vaccination schedule. Her application was dismissed by the High Court. She withheld the child from the father for several days and informed the child that the father was intending to have her vaccinated that week. The child became highly distressed at the prospect of being harmed by vaccination to the point that she became inconsolable and would not stop sobbing. The Court found that the mother’s actions in this regard were deplorable and that they were the very antithesis of child-focused and that her actions elevated her own irrational and unscientifically based fears above the best interests of her daughter. If you need any help, contact the team at James Noble Law for a FREE 20-minute consultation today. To schedule an appointment with one of our Qualified and experienced Brisbane family lawyers. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may like to know more information about the For more information, please visit the main article source: Family Court Jurisdiction Child support can be managed between the parties in a number of ways. Some parents prefer to and are able to have very flexible and informal arrangements between them. Others prefer that their arrangements are managed via the Child Support Agencies – and other parents formalise their arrangements via a Private Agreement.
A private Agreement determines how the expenses which may not necessarily be covered or considered sufficient under a child support assessment, completed through the Child Support Agency, would be paid by each parent. Taking the first step The first step is to determine how you, the parents, want to manage your child’s support. Irrespective of whether the Child Support Agency is managing the child support or if you have a private agreement in place, as a parent, it is your obligation to ensure that:
The Child Support Agency The Childsupport agency uses a formula which takes into consideration each parents circumstances to determine the amount of child support which is to be paid. This formula takes into consideration the following:
It is important to note that the agency’s formula does not take into consideration an allowance for private school fees or health insurance premiums and or any additional payments made under a private agreement. Child Support Private Agreements The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 sets out that there are two types of agreements which are taken into consideration or alter the amount of child support which is to be paid. The considerations which are taken into account are:
It is important to understand what the act sets out when arranging a private agreement. There are two types of Private Child Support Agreements:
What’s the difference between Limited Child Support Agreements and Binding Child Support Agreements? Both agreements will formalise their child support arrangements. Both agreements are required to be signed by the parties and will need to be lodged with the Child Support Agency. However, as both agreements are different it is important for you to carefully consider which child support agreement is right for you. For more information or to discuss your situation, please contact us on 1800 662 535 for a FREE 20-minute consultation. We have Qualified and Experienced Family Lawyers Brisbane at James Noble Law. Find Brisbane family law lawyers on Google Maps now. https://g.page/brisbanefamilylaw?share Article Source: Child Support Agency Are you and your former partner discussing the future care arrangements for your child or children? If so, perhaps consider entering into a Parenting Plan.
It is a private agreement between two parents which can detail the agreed arrangements in relation to a child/children. This includes provisions for the time, school holidays, special occasions, telephone communication, etc. A Parenting Plan when signed by both parties then comes into effect. And it is flexible and can be updated as and when the parents require or at important junctions in a child’s life i.e. when commencing Prep. However, it is important to note that a Parenting Plan is not legally binding and cannot be enforced. This means that if a parent breaches the terms and conditions of a Parenting Plan there is no direct consequence. Although this can be used as evidence in Court proceedings. To further discuss Parenting Plans, please Contact our experienced team of Brisbane family lawyers at James Noble Law for more information. Article Source: Parenting Plan How Our Children are Exposed?
Children exposed to disturbing content on the home computer, despite the best intentions and efforts of parents who have installed filters and monitoring systems to protect their children from inappropriate content. Children whose parents believe they are watching harmless and age-appropriate videos (such as Pepper Pig and Frozen), may be exposed to disturbing violent or pornographic content involving their favorite characters. Disturbingly, this content isn’t picked up or caught by YouTube and YouTube Kids and can appear on your children’s screens without warning. Children Are Being Exposed to Terrifying Content Online Clinical psychologists warn that children exposed to this content can suffer anxiety, depression, and nightmares or may start acting out and behaving violently or inappropriately. If your child has been exposed to one of these videos, psychologists recommend that you talk to them about it, reassure them that they are safe, and seek professional help if they continue to be scared or experience nightmares. Child Safety Experts offer the following advice to parents:
Article Source: Children Exposed Obtaining the best outcomes for you and your children through our experience and skill. James Noble Law Brisbane employs Accredited Specialist Family Lawyer; James Noble. The best Family lawyers Brisbane has to offer to help you with your child custody problems.
Separation and divorce can often be the most traumatic and difficult times for any adult. There is particular hardship with those couples with children. In these circumstances, the Family Law Court considers the best interests of the child the most important issues. Importantly, your children have the right to spend time with both parents, no matter what your former spouse or partner has to say.It must be considered what the law says about parenting arrangements and how the separation will affect future contact with the children. At all times, you should be fully informed about your legal rights and position as well as those of the children involved. We can provide accurate advice regarding your child’s entitlement to spending time with you and help you get what you want in that regard. Being child-focused is one of our highest tenets. James Noble Law can support you through the toughest time of yours and your children’s lives at a very stressful, emotional, and trying time. We can help with counselling and psychological help if necessary, with our network of highly regarded professionals in these fields. If you are separating obtain full details about the parenting of your children, your rights, and obligations. To explain some of the key areas surrounding child custody, let’s unpack some of the commonly used phrases and meanings such as ‘equal shared parental responsibility, ‘significant and substantial time’, and ‘major long-term decisions’. You need to understand these concepts to avoid compromising your legal rights. When necessary, we’ll take steps to obtain you legal protection in situations involving family violence. A typical parenting order made by the Family Law Court will involve equal shared parental responsibility. This essentially means that parental responsibility is shared between both parents, and, one parent is unable to make decisions without communicating with the other. If a parenting order is made by the Family Law Court for a party to have sole parental responsibility, that party does not need to consult the other parent in the decision-making process. In situation where the parties have equal shared responsibility, there are several “core” areas which the parents must communicate and ultimately agree on which affects the child or children. These core areas are known as the “major long-term issues”. Whilst the definition of “major issues” is not meant to be exhaustive, the five most common areas relate to the child’s:
Whilst it is common for the Court to order major long-term issues require consultation between both parents before a decision is made, this does not typically extend to govern the day-to-day needs and issues relating to the children. For instance, one parent is not required to consult the other regarding the best route to drop the child of at school, what the child eats or what the child’s routine will be, as these are not considered major long-term issues. Not only does this allow parents to have small freedoms in relation to the raising of their child, but also prevent the parents from “over-communicating”, especially where the parties recently had drawn out Court proceedings. Usually the parent who has the primary care of the child/ren on that day will be responsible for decisions that relate the day-to-day welfare of the child. If the Court does order the parties have equal shared responsibility and a parent relating to that order fails to make a genuine effort to involve the other with the major long term issues of the children, that parent may be in breach (contravention) of the Parenting Order. Despite one parent’s feeling towards the other, if Court Orders are in place and provide for equal shared parenting responsibilities, one parent is unable to ignore these orders. The law regarding arrangements for children is complex. Even if relations with your former partner are amicable, it is advisable to obtain legal advice, so each party fully understand their rights, obligations and liabilities regarding legal considerations which apply to children’s arrangements. We can assist you across the range of parenting matters, including: Relocation and removal of children from care;
Our priority is to facilitate an agreement between the parties through negotiation or mediation which we will guide and support you through. If an agreement is unable to be reached, we will recommend and pursue litigation and arbitration options pursuant to your instructions. Despite initiating court proceedings on your behalf, we will endeavour to settle your matter amicably opposed to bringing a court action to its finality. Importantly, if an agreement can be negotiated between the parties without the involvement of litigation or court proceedings, that agreement should be contained in a legally binding document such as Consent Orders. For more information on this area, click here. Alternatively, you may seek to have the agreement provided for under a Parenting Plan, however, this agreement is not registered with the Court and is therefore unenforceable at law. A Parenting Plan approach would likely be appropriate in circumstances where the relationship with your former partner is amicable, or, you and your former partner wish to maintain flexible arrangements for the children in the future. We can assist you during this process by:
Since each family is unique, and the best interests of the child often differ from case to case, there is no one set of uniform arrangements provided for under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Instead, the Family Law Court actively encourages parents to reach agreements regarding parenting arrangements for their children outside of court, provided the outcome represents the best interests of the children. If it becomes necessary to go to Court, the Court must have that same regard when determining what Orders,it will make for children. When determining child custody arrangements, the Court will account for the primary consideration of the child’s best interests which include:
In addition to the primary considerations listed above, the Court will also examine secondary considerations pursuant to legislation, which include:
Before imposing an order, the Court will always consider what parenting arrangements are in the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, any views expressed by the child will be taken into consideration. During this process, the Court will place appropriate weight to these views depending upon various factors such as the child’s maturity and understanding of the situation. As children of a mature age are more likely to grasp the concepts of separation, split child custody, and parenting arrangements, the Court is likely to place far more weight to the views of children between the age bracket of 14 – 18 years. Studies indicate children within this age bracket are more likely to comprehend complex situations such as parenting arrangements as opposed to children less than 10 years. Although the current law encompasses the views of all children under the age of 18 years, the Queensland Family and Child Commission has recently proposed recommendations to the Australian Law Reform Commission that the views of younger children should be considered with more weight. The recent submission made to the ALRC consider child’s views are significant, regardless of age or maturity. The submissions seek to further promote the meaningful engagement younger children have with the parenting arrangement process. These notions have been publicly backed by child protection organisations such as Bravehearts and UnitingCare who believe the voice of the child need to be heard in all situations. Despite having practical applications, these submissions may be premature in placing significant weight to infantile children’s views. Family Law Experts have indicated reform of this area may lead to parenting arrangements which may seem in the child’s best interests, but ultimately fail to address underlying concerns such as manipulation and bribery. Social studies indicate many children between the ages of 8 – 12 show preference towards the “fun” parent, whilst the parent who enforces disciplinary is viewed negatively. In cases involving a 50/50 custody dispute, if the views of the child are given more weight, this could be unfairly detrimental to one parent in the proceedings. Therefore, despite the child having a negative view of the disciplinary parent, enforcement of punishment is likely to be in the child’s best interests. This is supported by studies indicating young children are often unconsciously influenced, or in some cases manipulated, by one parent proving excitement and gifts. If a child in this situation was asked which parent they would prefer (without the necessary maturity and understanding) the answer may indicate a decision they do not fully comprehend, and, one which is not within the child’s ultimate long-term interests. To avoid unnecessary manipulation and bribing of children by parents, emphasis may be placed on expert third parties which could assist the Court in determining the underlying views of the child. Persons such as Family Report Writers, Independent Children’s Lawyers, Psychologists or Counsellors can be integrated into this process to ensure the child’s views are understood. This integration would also act as a safeguard to prevent parenting orders from being influenced by wrongly founded child views resulting from bribes or manipulation. One of the biggest issues facing Multi-national Australian families is parenting arrangements and child custody. The 2011 Census suggests nearly half of the Australian population has one parent who was born in another country. As Australia has one of the highest intermarriage rates and divorces in the world, this often leads to international child custody disputes. In circumstances where parents are multi-national and have sufficient connections or family members in another country, the first and foremost consideration should be the child remaining in the Australian Commonwealth jurisdiction until such time Parenting Plans, Consent Orders or Parenting Orders are finalised. Under Australian law, the Family Court will not allow one parent to move their children interstate or overseas against the other parents’ wishes. If one parent attempts to do so, there are numerous methods of preventing this from happening. Some of the most common methods include restraining passports to be in the possession of the parent through surrendering them to the Court, or,seeking orders which restrain the removal of children from Australia by requesting the AFP to assist Airport Watch. However, if children are born overseas to a couple, there are no steadfast rules determining where the children should live in the event of a partnership separation. The recent story of Melissa George is an example of how international relationships can go southward quickly. In the case of George, the children were born in France to a French father and therefore have citizenship in the country. Therefore, unfortunately for Melissa, the court is unlikely to impose an order allowing for them to be removed. Another famous example is the situation involving Sally Faulkner and the Channel 9 TV Crew in 2016. Following a televised and filmed kidnapping attempt by Faulkner the husband moved both children to Lebanon, where the Lebanese Judge gave the husband full custody of the children. This acts as an important reminded to avoid taking circumstances into your own hands, regardless of the seriousness of the situation. The Family Law Court will look gravely upon a parent who attempts to purposively removes, abducts or kidnaps a child from the other parent. This may result in a serious fine being imposed or adverse orders for that parent to not have further contact with the child. If your child or children have been taken outside Australia without your consent or have not been returned to Australia, you should immediately contact the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department for assistance. Although Australia has an agreement with some countries to return abducted children to their country of usual residence under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, if the child is not within a party to this convention, the Court is unable to enforce the children’s return. If you are having an out-of-hours emergency regarding child abduction, you should contact the Court on 1300 352 000 to make an application. If the children have not been abducted but you have a reasonable suspicion an attempt may occur in the near future, you should contact legal support to clarify your position or contact the Australian Passport Information Service on 13 12 32 to find out more information regarding child alerts. Article Source: Child Custody |
Categories
All
|