What is Evatt List? The Evatt List – Federal Circuit and Family Court of AustraliaThe Evatt List is an initiative in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia designed to triage and progress matters that are considered high-risk. The list aims to guide families that are going through a separation with high-level risks through the Court system at a much faster rate, given the urgency of their situation. Matters are eligible to be placed onto the Evatt List if it is for parenting orders only and the parties have completed the Family DOORS Triage Risk screening resulting in a high-risk categorization A general overview of the process is as follows:
Family DOORS Triage Risk ScreeningThe Family DOORS Triage Risk screening is an online questionnaire. You will be asked to complete this questionnaire when you file an Application or Response with the Court in which you are seeking parenting orders only. Upon completion of the questionnaire, your matter will be categorized with a low, moderate, or high level of risk. If your matter returns a high-risk classification, your matter is likely to be placed on the Evatt List. Need Legal Help? If you are considering taking this next step, please contact the team at James Noble Law for a FREE, no-obligation 20-minute consultation to discuss your particular situation with Brisbane family lawyers. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may like to know more information about the
0 Comments
Family court orders are binding
Court orders are binding for all parties, regardless of whether it is on an interim or final basis. Despite this, breaches of court orders are still extremely common in family law. The important question is what can be done when dealing with breaches of orders? Ultimately, there are three options:
When it comes to family law, doing nothing may not be the most appealing option to you, but it may be the best option. For example, the other side may have breached interim orders by not making a payment, but filing another application and returning to Court with the trial coming up is likely not the time or cost-effective, and the matter can be dealt with at the trial. If the orders were made on an interim basis, an application to vary or set aside the orders may be appropriate. This happens in circumstances where orders are inefficient, improperly drafted as not to be enforceable, or when a party uses the Orders contrary to their intent. For example, the parties in Blackwell & Scott (2017) entered into consent orders for an equal division of property, which involved the husband paying the wife a sum of $130,000. The husband defaulted for an extended period of 13 months and the wife successfully brought an application to set aside the orders and seek an updated settlement pursuant to section 90SN of the Family Law Act 1975. If the orders are properly drafted to be enforceable, the appropriate step would be to file a contravention application with the Court pursuant to section 112AD of the Family Law Act 1975. This is a tougher approach which can involve the respondent being subjected to the imposition of a bond, imprisonment (of no more than one year or until they comply, whichever is lesser), a community service order or a fine. Importantly, there are also various enforcement remedies available for the client pursuant to the new Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. The Court may make an order:
As can be seen, there are a number of enforcement methods available to the client. In making an application to the Court it is important to carefully comply with the necessary procedures. If your ex-partner is breaching family court orders, or you require any family law advice, contact the Brisbane family lawyer team at James Noble Law today for a free, no-obligation 20-minute consultation. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
Australian Court System about Unvaccinated
Despite the Coronavirus pandemic continuing to make waves across the country, it is not compulsory to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Presently it is up to an adult individual to make this decision for themselves or a parent to make this decision for their underage child. The right to make such a decision is typically referred to as “freedom of choice”. At James Noble Law we support and respect everyone’s right to make the choice whether to vaccinate or not, for themselves and their family. In circumstances where clients choose not to vaccinate, we are able to offer our clients individualized appointments via a number of electronic means including Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or telephone assuring you that your family law matter will be dealt with in a timely and cost-effective manner. Special Measures Information Notice – COVID-19 Hearing Protocol At present, the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia have issued a “Special Measures Information Notice – COVID-19 Hearing Protocol” which applies in all states except Western Australia. The Notice provides that for all matters within the Australian Court system, the Court will seek assurance from either legal representatives or self-represented litigants ahead of in-person hearings to confirm that all participants are at least double vaxxed. This means that all people who propose to enter the Court must be able to show proof that they are at least double vaxxed against COVID-19 unless an exception applies (such as a medical exemption). Otherwise, access to the physical premise of the Court will be denied. In those circumstances, the Court will offer the alternative option of appearances to be conducted via Microsoft Teams. As your solicitor, we may ask you to provide proof of your vaccination status as we are required to provide this information to the Court. However, there is no judgment and this is no barrier to us advocating on your behalf and navigating your matter through the Court system. Cross-examination and submissions can be effectively presented to the Court via Microsoft Teams were required to ensure the facilitation of the administration of justice. If you are unvaccinated or still considering your options and require family law advice, please contact the Brisbane Family lawyers 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
From 1 September 2021 the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia has implemented new Pre-Action Procedures that must be adhered to and followed prior to anyone commencing Court proceedings.
The aim of the Pre-Action Procedures are to give the matter a chance at resolving amicably before the pathway of litigation is commenced. The new Pre-Action Procedures are set out in Schedule 1 of the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court Rules 2001 and include the following:
The hope of the Pre-Action Procedures are that matters will resolve amicably without Court intervention, thereby reducing the amount of matters requiring judicial intervention in the Federal Circuit court and Family Court of Australia. This comes as a result of the system being overhauled and the previous Federal Circuit Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia having merged as at 1 September 2021. Focus remains on alternate dispute resolution and parties are encouraged to take the time to make a genuine effort to resolve their dispute without relying on the limited resources of the Court. If you are considering commencing Court proceedings and would like more information on the Pre-Action Procedures, 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
On 1 September 2021 the Family Court of Australia merged with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The new Court referred to as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has a primary aim to finalise 90% of property or parenting matters by way of providing a final judgment and decision within 12 months of filing an Initiating Application.
For years, the Family and Federal Circuit Court’s have been overworked, understaffed, and plagued by constant delays and adjournments of matters. The new Court aims to provide a solution with quicker and more cost-effective resolutions to family law matters that require the Court’s intervention. On a practical level, the merger now means there is one Court, one jurisdiction, and one set of Court forms with updated processes to accelerate matters within the system. On a practical level, the new Court will expedite the process by ensuring a first Court date within 6 to 8 weeks of filing an Initiating Application, with matters then Ordered to attend mediation within 6-months and, if unsuccessful at mediation, will proceed to a trial and receive judgment in under 12 months. Now is therefore a better time than any to commence Court proceedings under the new Court system. If you are considering taking this next step, please contact the team at James Noble Law for a FREE, no-obligation 20-minute consultation to discuss your particular situation with 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: Federal Circuit Court Legislation QLD Australia: Where the children should live and how much time they should spend with the other parent or other significant adults in their lives are now subject to the Family Law Act. This came into effect in 2006.
The principals in the legislation QLD in Australia are summarised as follows: “The law will take the view that parenting is a responsibility which should be shared and, in most cases, parents will need to consult and agree on the major of issues affecting their children.” “Where both parents share responsibility, consideration will also be given to the children spending equal or at least substantial time with both parents providing that this is practical and not contrary to the best interests of the child.” The changes to the legislation QLD in Australia were designed to support and promote shared parenting and to encourage people to reach an agreement about parenting children after separation. Changes made were to encourage parents to take responsibility for resolving disputes themselves and not in an adversarial manner. Family Relationships Centres where parties are able to mediate matters relating to the parenting of their children were established in the Brisbane area. There are a number of Family Relationship Centres in Brisbane. When determining parenting matters, the parties must first attend a mediation to try and resolve parenting issues before filing proceedings in the Family Court unless there are urgent matters requiring attention or where there are serious welfare matters regarding children. In such cases, Courts may hear applications in regard to the parenting of children without the parties attending mediation. Mediation can take place in organisations such as Relationships Australia. There will be fees associated with this. The mediator will issue a section 60 I certificate confirming that mediation had been appointed giving details of the mediation. This certificate must be filed with the Court when proceedings are instituted unless there is some urgency regarding the children. A Court will not hear a parenting application without a certificate being filed with the Court. These principles relate to all children under the age of 18 years, that is, prior to children becoming adults, whether the parties are married or unmarried. Australian QLD legislation overriding principal of the Court in parenting matters is that the best interests of the children are paramount. This principal overrides the wishes and desires of the parents. The decision of the Court after all the relevant facts, relationships, claims, and wishes of parents, risks, choices, and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, is based on the best interests of the child’s welfare. WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT? Section 60B of the Family Law Act states that the best interests of children are met by;
Section 60B(2) of the Family Law Act states that except when it is or would be contrary to the child’s best interest;
In regard to the children having a right to enjoy their culture the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island children to access, explore and appreciate their particular culture is clearly, and distinctly, set out in the principles of the Family Law QLD legislation in Australia. These principles clearly apply to Aboriginal or Torres Straight Island children. They do not extend to other cultures although the Court may take this into account. Section 64B(2) of the Family Law Act sets out particulars of parenting Orders that the Court can make. The section sets out the following provisions;
The family law NSW legislation provides that the parents of a child have a shared parental responsibility. That is that parents share a shared parental responsibility in making decisions about major long-term issues affecting their children. A parent cannot unilaterally make a decision in regard to such long-term issues without the consent and consultation of the other parent. A major long-term issue in regard to a child is something that could be related to the care, welfare and development of the child and could include but would not be limited to the child’s:
However, unilaterally enrolling a child in a sporting or other activity which would affect the other parent’s time with the child may be considered a shared parental responsibility in which case the consent of the other parent should first be obtained. Decisions regarding the schooling and residence of the child come within shared parental responsibility. Unilateral decisions by one parent cannot be made in such instances. The other parent must be consulted. If a court decides that the parents have shared parental responsibility for their child, the Court must consider whether the child spending equal time with the parents is in the child’s best interest and whether it is reasonably practicable. If the Court believes so then the Court must consider making an Order for the child to spend equal time with their parents. If equal time is not practicable and not in the child’s best interests, the Court then considers whether the child should spend substantial and significant time with the other parent. However, the overriding principal of what’s in the child’s best interests must always apply when making decisions in regard to shared parental responsibility and the parties spending equal time with the child or significant time with the child. The majority of matters proceeding to a trial in the Family Court relate to children’s issues, The Family Law Act sets out the following guidelines when considering parenting issues:
The Court will also look at a parent’s involvement in the past parenting of the child and whether that parent has shown interest in the parenting and development of the child. The legislation QLD in Australia does consider other persons apart from the parents when making Orders in regard to children. Persons who have a significant interest in a child’s life such as grandparents or relatives also have significant in relation to the rights of the child. The Courts will consider applications by such persons to be involved in a child’s life. Such interests are normally subordinate to the parents’ rights to the children. Find out more legislation QLD by contacting James Noble. For more information, please visit the main article source: Legislation QLD What Does Structural Reform of the Federal Court Mean To You?
On 30 May 2018, the Government proposed to establish the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCA), amalgamating the two courts together under a new regime. In addition to this proposed structure, a new Family Law Appeal Division will be created to hear appeals from the FCFCA regarding family law matters. The implementation of the new structure commenced operation on 1 January 2019. There will now be a single point of entry for family law matters, being through the FCFCA. The current court structure has been debilitated with overlapping jurisdictional matters, backlogs of case hearings, and significant inefficiencies through delays, costs, and overall experiences by parties to the litigation. The proposed reform will address these issues by establishing a new streamlined court system, enabling Australian families to have their matters dealt with in a timely manner and receive more consistent resolutions. The structure of the FCFCA is divided into two divisions. The first will comprise existing judges of the Family court, whilst the second will comprise existing judges of the Federal Circuit Court. Division 1 will deal exclusively with family law matters. Division 2 will deal with both family law matters and federal law matters. No further judge appointments will occur in Division 1, meaning when those judges who are currently appointed in Division 1 retire, this division will cease to exist. In regard to federal law matters, the process of appeal will not be affected by the new FCFCA structure. Practical Effects of Merge The new FCFCA will create a single point of entry into the court system for family law matters. The principle of prioritizing urgent and high-risk cases will continue to be adhered to, with all other cases being allocated to a relevant judge and division at the earliest possible date. To assists in making the new structure efficient, the FCFCA will operate under the leadership of the Chief Justice Australia and the Deputy Chief Justice. This proposed formula ensures allocation of matters will be handled via the common case management process. By adopting this process, parties to a dispute can be assured the matter is being dealt with consistently. Furthermore, litigants will have an increased experience with the court system and parties will be able to grasp the cost implications of lodging a family law initiating an application. The change to appeals under the FCFCA will remove the predominant part of the appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court. The aim of this proposal will be to divert judicial resources from the appeal section to focus on alleviating the backlog of first instance family law matters. As a result, party dispute waiting times will be standardised with the court being able to hear more cases on average per year. Although the FCFCA will retain jurisdiction to hear appeals from State/Territory court summary jurisdiction, the creation of the new appellate jurisdiction will extend to both division 1 and 2 of the FCFCA. The current rights to appeal provided for under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) will not be affected. Statistics Supporting Reform In the last five years, the family law cases before the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court have grown from 17,000 to 21,000. In addition to this increase, the average time of cases pending final orders has grown to over 12 months. In regard to cases awaiting trial, the median time spans between 10.8 – 15.2 months for the FCC and 11.5 – 17 months for the Family Court of Australia. In regard to appeals, only 250 have been filed each year since 2013. Although appeals can usually be heard by a single judge, over 75% of appeals to the Family Court are heard by the Full Bench of three judges. In comparison, 88% of appeals in the FCC are heard by a single judge. The current structure of the Family Court provides families are estimated to have cost more than four times the amount of average FCC matters, litigants are required to appear in court 45% more than litigants in the FCC, and days allocated for the trial are double in the Family Court than in the FCC. In terms of unnecessary jurisdiction transfers, the average waiting time to have a case transferred between the courts is 11.1 months in the FCC and 4.6 months in the Family Court. Consequently, the 1,200 families attempting to transfer matters in 2016-17 had to essentially restart their proceedings using the alternate courts’ practice. Watch this space The proposed structural changes aim to improve case efficiency drastically, allowing time to hear and resolve an additional 8000 cases per year. This conclusion is broken down into a potential 3,500 cases arising from consolidating a single court entity with one point of entry, 3,000 cases from structured common case management, and 1,500 cases arising from shifting judicial resources from appeals to first instance matters. Although the finalization of 8,000 cases may be an optimistic conclusion by the Government, these changes will hopefully reduce the growing backlog of cases under the current regime and reduce average waiting times. To discuss your situation and the options that are available to you, contact the team at James Noble Law today for expert advice from experienced Brisbane solicitors for a FREE 20-minute consultation. We have Qualified and Experienced Family Lawyers Brisbane at James Noble Law. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you now. You may like to know more information about the
Important information and contact details about the Family Law Courts Brisbane
The Family Law Courts Brisbane’ National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email inquiries about Family Law Court matters in the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The NEC can assist with:
NEC opening hours 8.30 am to 5.00 pm ~ Monday to Friday NEC contact details Phone: 1300 352 000* TTY: 1300 720 980* International: +61 2 8892 8590 Email: [email protected] Fax: +61 2 8892 8585 Address Family Law Courts Brisbane, NSW National Enquiry Centre GPO Box 9991 Parramatta NSW 2150 Family Law Help There are services available to help families deal with separation issues without going to court. If you are affected by family relationship or separation issues and do not have a case before the Court, call the Family Relationship Advice line on 1800 050 321 or visit www.familyrelationship.gov.au or visit www.familylawcourts.gov.au For more info call the National Enquiry Centre on 1300 352 000 James Noble Law can help Charles Noble (Family Lawyer) Interview at Business South Bank Beyond all, if you would like any information on the Family Law Courts Brisbane regarding a matter that may be in progress, please call and speak to one of our highly experienced Brisbane Family Lawyers on 1800 662 535 Find Best Family Lawyers Brisbane at Google Maps near you for legal help. You may also like to know about:
Read more about visiting our website: Family Law Court How To Be A Responsible Shared Parent?
Shared parental responsibility: Where the children should live and how much time they should spend with the other parent or other significant adults in their lives are now subject to the Family Law Act. This came into effect in 2006. The principals in the legislation are summarised as follows: “The law will take the view that parenting is a responsibility which should be shared and, in most cases, parents will need to consult and agree on the major of issues affecting their children.” “Where both parents share responsibility, consideration will also be given to the children spending equal or at least substantial time with both parents providing that this is practical and not contrary to the best interests of the child.” LEGISLATIVE CHANGES The changes to the legislation were designed to support and promote shared parenting and to encourage people to reach an agreement about the parenting of children after separation or consent orders are put in place. Changes made were to encourage parents to take responsibility for resolving disputes themselves and not in an adversarial manner. Family Relationships Centres where parties are able to mediate matters relating to the parenting of their children were established in the Brisbane area. There are a number of Family Relationship Centres in Brisbane. When determining parenting matters, the parties must first attend a mediation to try and resolve parenting issues before filing proceedings in the Family Court unless there are urgent matters requiring attention or where there are serious welfare matters regarding children. In such cases, Courts may hear applications in regard to the parenting of children without the parties attending mediation. Mediation can take place in organisations such as Relationships Australia. There will be fees associated with this. The mediator will issue a section 60 I certificate confirming that mediation had been appointed giving details of the mediation. This certificate must be filed with the Court when proceedings are instituted unless there is some urgency regarding the children. A Court will not hear a parenting application without a certificate being filed with the Court. These principles relate to all children under the age of 18 years, that is, prior to children becoming adults, whether the parties are married or unmarried – notwithstanding Binding Financial Agreements. The overriding principle of the Court in parenting matters is that the best interests of the children are paramount. This principle overrides the wishes and desires of the parents. The decision of the Court after all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, is based on the best interests of the child’s welfare. WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT? Section 60B of the Family Law Act states that the best interests of children are met by;
In regard to the children having a right to enjoy their culture the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children to access, explore and appreciate their particular culture is clearly, and distinctly, set out in the principles of the Family Law Act. These principles clearly apply to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island children. They do not extend to other cultures although the Court may take this into account. Section 64B(2) of the Family Law Act sets out particulars of parenting Orders that the Court can make. The section sets out the following provisions;
The family law legislation provides that the parents of a child have a shared parental responsibility. That is that parents share a shared parental responsibility in making decisions about major long-term issues affecting their children. A parent cannot unilaterally make a decision in regard to such long-term issues without the consent and consultation with the other parent. A major long-term issue in regard to a child is something that could be related to the care, welfare and development of the child and could include but would not be limited to the child’s:
However, day to day parenting of a child does not normally fall within the definition of shared parental responsibility. Parents are not obliged to consult each other on issues that are not major long-term issues. This means that the parent with whom the child is spending time will usually not need to consult with the other parent about the normal day-to-day decisions regarding the care of that child. However, unilaterally enrolling a child in a sporting or other activity which would affect the other parent’s time with the child may be considered a shared parental responsibility in which case the consent of the other parent should first be obtained. Decisions regarding the schooling and residence of the child come within shared parental responsibility. Unilateral decisions by one parent cannot be made in such instances. The other parent must be consulted. If a court decides that the parents have shared parental responsibility for their child, the Court must consider whether the child spending equal time with the parents is in the child’s best interest and whether it is reasonably practicable. If the Court believes so then the Court must consider making an Order for the child to spend equal time with their parents. If equal time is not practicable and not in the child’s best interests, the Court then considers whether the child should spend substantial and significant time with the other parent. However, the overriding principle of what’s in the child’s best interests must always apply when making decisions in regard to shared parental responsibility and the parties spending equal time with the child or significant time with the child. A FAMILY COURT TRIAL The majority of matters proceeding to a trial in the Family Court relate to children’s issues, The Family Law Act sets out the following guidelines when considering parenting issues:
The Court will also look at a parent’s involvement in the past parenting of the child and whether that parent has shown interest in the parenting and development of the child. The legislation does consider other persons apart from the parents when making Orders in regard to children. Persons who have a significant interest in a child’s life such as grandparents or relatives also have significance in relation to the rights of the child. The Courts will consider applications by such persons to be involved in a child’s life. Such interests are normally subordinate to the parent’s rights to the children. To discuss your situation and the options that are available to you, contact the team at James Noble Law today for expert advice from experienced Brisbane solicitors for a FREE 20-minute consultation. We have Qualified and Experienced Family Lawyers Brisbane at James Noble Law. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you now. You may like to know more information about theFor more information, please visit the main article source: Court Orders Punishment For Breach of a Family Court Order
In a recent decision of the Family Court, it was ordered that a mother serve an immediate term of imprisonment of 14 days and further that she be subject to a further term of imprisonment of 14 days which will be fully suspended. This arose because the mother had failed on numerous occasions to allow her child to spend time with the child’s father when there were orders in place for the child to be with the father. She had given an undertaking to the Court in the following terms: “I undertake to the Court that for a period of 24 months from the giving of this undertaking I will comply with the terms of any parenting order in force from time to time in relation to my child. I acknowledge that should it be proven that I have not complied with the condition of this bond that I may be required to pay a fine not exceeding 10 penalty units (a penalty unit is currently $222) and I will be liable to be dealt with again for contravening orders that required me to provide my child to her Father. And further that I will be liable to have the order suspending the 14 days terms of imprisonment in relation to the previous contravention terminated resulting in me being imprisoned for a period of 14 days.”
Her solicitor noted that he had explained to her in language likely to be readily understood by her:
The Judge found that the fact the contravention occurred whilst the mother was subject to a bond renders it again more serious in its proper context. The second and third contraventions further had the effect of derailing the assessment process to prepare the matter for trial, resulting in a delay of the trial. Again, in the context of a strong and recent history of non-compliance and in the context of occurring in the currency of a bond, it should be considered that these are more serious contraventions. The Judge was satisfied that the three counts are more serious beyond a reasonable doubt. Imprisonment Fair Punishment For Breach of a Family Court OrderIt is necessary to consider whether each matter that points to a sanction of imprisonment, fines, or community service order is established beyond a reasonable doubt. An order for imprisonment can be made under Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act. The Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of firstly all of the factual matters that relate to the finding of contravention and secondly, that the contravention is a “more serious contravention” to which the more serious and more punitive powers contained in Subdivision F of Division 13A apply and thirdly, the Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the inappropriateness of other available sanctions. The Judge stated that the suspension of that previous term of imprisonment was the last hope of compliance without incarcerating the mother. It was a hope that was misplaced. The Judge was persuaded that it was only gaol time, albeit as short as possible a period, that will cause the mother to comply with orders whereas previously, he was persuaded that having such a term hanging over the mother’s head would be sufficient or sufficiently salutary. The Judge observed that it is contrary to the child’s best interest for the mother to be non-compliant with the Court orders and that to achieve compliance, it is necessary that the mother serve the time that was previously suspended. Accordingly, the order for suspension was terminated and it was ordered that the mother serve 14 days imprisonment in respect of the contraventions. To learn more about this, please 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 family lawyers Brisbane. Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. You may also like to know more information about the
|
Categories
All
|