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
0 Comments
The recently announced 2021-2022 Budget has allocated $100 million over 4 years to the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
It is hoped that this increased funding will assist in reducing the significant delays associated with the Court, which were amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. The funding will also assist in improving safety measures for litigants, children and their families and the overworked system in general. The funding will provide for 2 additional Family Court Judges and 8 additional Federal Circuit Court Judges. Much of the focus will therefore be on judicial support and reform and it is hoped that these positive changes will lead to a quicker resolution for families who require the Court’s intervention. James Noble Law is focused on negotiating amicable agreements outside of the Court to reduce the stress, costs, and uncertainty that often come with litigation. However, there are circumstances where this course of action is required. Increased funding will hopefully assist to ensure a quicker and more personalised pathway for litigants, taking into account their particular circumstances. 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 also like to know about Family Court Portal Article Source: Family Court With Melbourne currently in the midst of yet another lockdown as a result of the recent spread of Coronavirus, it’s important to know that the Courts remain up and running throughout this period. Did you know that there is a special dedicated COVID-19 Court List within the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia? The COVID-19 List operates to deal exclusively with urgent family law matters that have arisen as a direct result of the Coronavirus pandemic. This could include parenting matters where a parent’s time is impacted with a child as a result of COVID-19, complications with border restrictions, an increase in the family or domestic violence during lockdowns etc. In order to be eligible for the COVID-19 List participants need to satisfy the following conditions:
Find Brisbane family lawyers on Google Maps near you. Article Source: Family Court of Australia James Noble Law is experienced by advocates in the Federal Circuit Court and Family Courts as well as the state Courts in Brisbane for a range of matters. We offer professional Brisbane town agency rates that are fixed so you know how much you will pay before you even make contact with us. See the schedule below for details.
James Noble has had 40 years of experience in the Courts and can take care of the most complex matters. Just provide your instructions and documents and he will take care of it for you. Charles Noble and our other lawyers attend Court on regular basis (sometimes daily). We have a network of lawyers who are experts in their field who can help with all your town agency needs. At James Noble Law we offer repeat principals our special rates. All you need to do is instruct our firm more than three times and you are then eligible for the reduced rates. At James Noble Law we value our loyal principals and are happy to return the favour to you. The schedule below outlines our rates for firms that use our Town Agency Services Regularly. A Business Approach To Town Agency ServicesAll of our lawyers are admitted to practice in the State and Federal Courts, from the magistrates courts Queensland through to the Supreme and even High Court of Australia. James Noble Law can take on Brisbane family law matters as agents and offer an advanced process toward achieving a positive resolution for all clients. Get in touch to see how we can help with your Brisbane town agency matter. If you are not already a James Noble Law Brisbane Town Agency client, we look forward to showing you how Court work can be done to the highest quality without the need for you to charge your clients the fees and travel costs they would otherwise incur should you travel away from your local area to represent them. Aligned For Excellence.
James Noble Law Brisbane Town Agency Fees Per Day One off engagement and up to third use fees Half-Day (less than four hours)Full Day (more than four hours) Accredited Specialist or Lawyer with at least five years Court experience in your required field.$1,800 + GST$2,600 + GST Experienced Lawyer with less than five years Court experience in your required field$1,500 + GST$2,200 + GST Three uses and beyond Half-Day (less than four hours)Full Day (more than four hours) Accredited Specialist or Lawyer with at least five years Court experience in your required field.$1,700 + GST$2,500 + GST Experienced Lawyer with less than five years Court experience in your required field $1,400 + GST$2,100 + GST Article Source: Federal Circuit Court Of Australia Overflow Causes The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court to Merge
Many know that the family law courts are overflowing with matters and many of those matters relate to family violence and abuse, neglect, or harm coming to children. Some may not know that the majority of all family law matters that go to Court start off in the Federal Circuit Court. This Court (originally named The Federal Magistrates Court) was formed in 1999 to deal with less complex cases and take the burden off the Family Court at the time. Whilst this has occurred, now the Federal Circuit Court of Australia is experiencing the same problems. This along with different rules, Court forms and procedures has made navigating the Federal Circuit Court for families and legal practitioners difficult at times leading many to call for a combined Court again. On 17 February 2021 a Bill was brought and passed in the Senate (Federal CircuitCourtand Family Court of Australia Bill 2019) effectively merging the two Courts. This is seen as a positive move forward by some so that all family matters are dealt with in the one place. However some criticise the Bill as it may be seen to lessen the specialisation of the Court as it will still deal with other federal matters not related to family law. Perhaps the two Court system could have been abolished leaving the stand-alone Family Court again and the further resources of additional Judges specialising in family law only could have solved both of these problems. Time will tell. There will now be two divisions of the Court; level one dealing with the more complex matters that the Family Court dealt with and level two with the less complex matter the Federal Circuit Court dealt with. There will now be common leadership and management of the two separate Courts which should help everyone who deals with the Court on an administrative level. Time will tell if the case management of the family law system will improve and more resources and Judges can help families who need them urgently. As practitioners ourselves, we hope so for our sake and for our client’s sake who come to us to assist them in some of the darkest times in their lives. If we can be of assistance, please contact our experienced family lawyers team in Brisbane at James Noble Law today. Article Source: Federal Circuit Court Family Law Act amendments from Federal Government
The Family Law Act amendments occurred in 2002 to deal with superannuation. It gave power to the Court to deal with superannuation entitlements. The amendments allowed the Court to transfer entitlements in the fund of one of the parties to the other. The person receiving the benefit of the entitlement in the other party’s fund would keep that entitlement in the fund or roll the entitlement out into a fund of that party’s choosing. If the funds were not rolled out the party receiving the interest in the other party’s superannuation fund could deal with the entitlement as their own fund by paying monies into the fund or allowing the interest to increase by the actual increments of the fund. Prior to 2002, the superannuation interest could not be dealt with by the Court which meant that one party may have the benefit of a large superannuation interest which they retained and that the other party was excluded from that interest. A party may have salary sacrificed their income into their superannuation fund thereby creating a large superannuation interest. The remaining assets may have been meager which meant that one party would walk away with a large superannuation interest and the other party would only have a small interest in the remaining assets of the marriage which could be meager. However, if a party was entitled to draw down on their fund because of retirement or some other reason which allowed that party to deal with their super, then the Court had powers to prevent a party from dealing with their superannuation entitlements and when that party retired, the Court could then make Orders for monies to be drawn down from the superannuation fund and paid to the other party. This created difficulty in enforcing such Orders. The Family Law Act was amended to overcome these problems. The legislation was further changed in 2009 which enabled de-facto couples and same-sex couples to have the same rights as a married couple under the Family Law Act. This allowed them to also have the benefit of the change in legislation enabling the splitting of their superannuation funds. Recent Federal Budget of Family Law Act Amendments to Superannuation Substantial amendments were made to superannuation which greatly affects separating parties. Pursuant to such changes the maximum amount a person can put into a superannuation (non-concessional contributions – after-tax dollars) is $500,000.00 per member. This is a lifetime limit that became effective from 03 May 2016. Prior to the changes being made a person’s limit was $540,000.00 every three (3) years (if that person was under 65 years of age) or $180,000.00 per year. Many people took advantage of the legislation as it then was to contribute $540,000.00 every three (3) years being the maximum allowed at that time. If such contributions were made then the entitlements of that person now exceed the newly introduced lifetime cap. If the total amount paid into super exceeded the $500,000.00 after the date of the legislation then that person is now required to draw down the excess paid into superannuation and cannot contribute any more non-concessional contributions to his/her fund. There was no penalty in drawing down the amount required. When the limited amount of $500,000.00 has been paid into the superannuation fund no further non-concessional contributions can be made. Further, the limit on the allowable before-tax concessional contributions was reduced from $30,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year from July 2017. Because the Family Law legislation allows for the splitting of superannuation funds, many couples now separating may lose the ability to replace the entitlements in their fund if a splitting Order is made by the Court. Because of the changes to the superannuation legislation, people in a relationship, after separation will find it harder to rebuild their superannuation if a splitting Order has been made on their fund. Are there ways to protect yourself from the Superannuation Changes? Nicole Pedersen in a recent article suggests 4 ways of minimizing the impact:
Merging of the federal circuit court of Australia
On 30 May 2018, the Government proposed to restructure the existing structure of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. This will have the effect of merging the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCA) as of 1 January 2019. Resulting from this merge, a new Family Law Appeal Division will be created to specifically hear appeals from family matters of the new court structure. The new structure intends to create a uniform structure for dealing with family law matters. How does the Merging of the federal circuit court of Australia affect you? Although the exact legislative nature and effect of the proposed restructuring is unknown, the preliminary Government announcements have indicated the new FCFCA will have three distinct benefits to the parties: –
Additionally, the creation of a new family appeal division will allow parties to easily dispute a sentence. Under the current regime, there has been a significant backlog of matters in the court, meaning parties are required to wait for extended periods of time before their matters are heard before the court. The new proposals intend to reduce this backlog of matters, allowing parties to finalize matters effectively, and, seek to appeal orders quickly. The final benefit to the parties simply comes from the intended structure of the new FCFCA. As court litigation between parties often falls within a significantly confusing and difficult time in the person’s life, this confusion is not assisted by party matters spanning different courts in multiple jurisdictions. To alleviate this confusion, the proposed structure provides a distinct structure encompassing all matters regardless of jurisdiction. Article Source: Federal Circuit Court Of Australia Recovery, Respect, and Hope Offered by Traditional Court Alternative by Brisbane Family Lawyer
A successful initiative in the Brisbane Magistrates Court is assisting drug-addicted parents to get their lives back on track and resume their role in their children’s lives by Brisbane family lawyers. The Dandenong Drug Court, recently featured in television and print media, was introduced in response to the failure of the traditional criminal justice system to adequately address drug-associated offenses. Drug Courts are in operation in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia. In a departure from the traditional court and sentencing process, the Drug Court’s focus is on the rehabilitation of drug and alcohol dependent offenders, providing them with assistance in reintegrating into the community and getting their lives back on track. In Dandenong Magistrates Court, Magistrate Tony Parsons takes an innovative approach to the treatment of offenders who are offered an intensive treatment program as an alternative to a prison sentence. Participants in the program undergo frequent drug and alcohol testing, regular meetings with counselors and therapists, and weekly appearances in court for assessment before Parsons. Failure to comply with the program’s strict requirements will result in exclusion from the program and a prison term. The program doesn’t work for every offender but for those who complete the program, the results can be life-changing. According to the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, and a recent Government review of the court by Brisbane family lawyers:
Article Source: Drug Court 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. Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building The NEC can assist with:
Family Law Courts Brisbane and FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA have informative websites that have recently changed.
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 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 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 Article Source: Family Law Courts Brisbane Arbitration Australia is a Viable Alternative to Litigation. The process that is used to submit a dispute by a party and the agreement to one or more arbitrators those who make a binding decision on the dispute. In the case of arbitration law or family law arbitration, the parties choose the process of settling personal disputes without going to court.
I was in Court recently on the first Mention date of an application by the husband seeking Orders for the division of the net matrimonial assets of his relationship with my client. Both parties sought Interim Orders relating to each obtaining certain items of furniture and chattels, prior to a final resolution of the division of their assets. Extensive negotiations took place on the morning of the Court Hearing between myself and the solicitor acting for the Applicant. Finally, the parties were able to agree on the husband retaining certain items of property and my client retaining certain items as well. The parties were able to resolve their Interim Applications. We appeared before the Judge when Interim Orders were made by the Court. In regard to the remaining substantive issues concerning the ownership of the former matrimonial home, retention of shareholdings and options of the husband in his employer company, the division of superannuation, and the division of the remaining assets, the Application was put on the list of the pending cases for trial. The parties had already attended a formal Mediation which they had paid for but without successfully negotiating a settlement. The Judge hearing the matter informed the parties that because of the under appointment of Judges to the Family Court which created a limited capacity for her to hear the matter, that the call-over of trial matters would not take place prior to 12 months and that it would be another 12 months before a trial date could be allocated to the matter. She further advised that Judges are required to list two matters for each Trial date being one children’s matter and a property matter. She further advised that if the children’s matter set down on the Trial date had not resolved then it would take preference over the property matter and the property matter would be adjourned back to a list of matters awaiting a Trial date, which could mean a further lengthy delay before a Trial date is appointed. The matter if it remains in Court may not be heard for a period of at least three (3) years. Fortunately, my client, who was the wife in the proceedings, is able to reside comfortably in the former matrimonial home with the children. The mortgage secured over the property had been converted to an interest-only loan at 4.24% for a period of five (5) years, which was imminently affordable for her. She maintained sound employment. She enjoyed the extensive gardens at the home. The husband, however, was anxious to move on with his life. He had formed a new partnership and wished the matter to be resolved swiftly, which was not going to happen if the matter remained in the Court. This put great pressure on him to resolve property issues to his disadvantage. Arbitration Australia — A Voluntary Process A viable alternative to Litigation is Arbitration. This is extensively used in the building and construction industry. In the 1980s and 1990s, Arbitration was also used in family law matters. There were disadvantages under the legislation at that time in using Arbitration and its use diminished. The Family Law Regulations were amended in 2001 which overcame the earlier problems associated with Arbitration Australia. The amendments to the regulations allowed the registrations of Awards, which meant that either party could registrar an Award without the consent of the other party and it would still be binding on both parties. Before the amendments were made if an Award was made by the Arbitrator and one party disagreed and did not give consent to the registration of the Award then the Award could not be registered and was not binding. After the amendments to the Regulations, the Awards now are binding even though one party may not give consent to the registration of the Award and the Awards become a binding Order of the Court. There is now an obligation on solicitors to advise clients of the means of resolving their difficulties by way of Arbitration. There is a requirement to provide to clients a brochure titled, Marriages Family’s and Separation which deals with this and provides details of Arbitration. The only limitation placed on Arbitration is that it cannot deal with child support issues and is unable to make binding Orders in regard to a child’s welfare. Parenting matters can be discussed, during the course of Arbitration and an agreement may be reached by the parties in regard to such matters. The parties if they reach an agreement on parenting issues during the course of Arbitration can have that agreement set out in a Parenting Agreement or can apply to the Court for Orders to be issued by way of Consent Orders. The Award of the Arbitrator if it is to be registered with the Court and to issue as a binding Agreement, is limited to property settlement and spousal/defacto maintenance issues. Laurence Boulle, Professor of Law, Bond University QLD, in a newsletter published in January 2014 set out the following information in regards to Arbitration: Features of ArbitrationThe Arbitration procedure is underpinned by an agreement between the parties arbitrator. This arbitration agreement sets out and determines:
Forms Of Arbitration
Procedures In AidThere are a number of circumstances where the Court can be called upon to assist in the conduct of an Arbitration — apart from the general power to make Orders to facilitate the Arbitration. One instance is the ability of the Arbitrator to refer a question of law arising in the Arbitration to a judge for determination. Another example arises in circumstances where, in the course of a Court-referred Arbitration under s19D, a party does not comply with a procedural direction or, in the view of the Arbitrator, does not have the capacity to participate in the Arbitration. A third example of assistance provided by the Court relates to the ability of a party to apply to the Court for the issue of a subpoena to attend and/or produce documents at the Arbitration Australia. This subpoena has the same validity and effect as any other subpoena issued by the Court. Registration, Enforcement, And Review Of Awards Once an Award has been handed down in the prescribed form, either party can apply to the Court for registration of the Award. The other party then has twenty-eight (28) days to object to its registration. Upon registration, the Award has the same effect as if it were an Order of the Court and can be enforced in the same way. Pursuant to the provisions of the Family Law Act and the Family Court Act, the Family Court can:
Professor Boulle states in his newsletter; “By limiting a review to a question of law only, the legislation arguable gives Arbitration Awards less potential to be overturned than a judge’s decision.“ Not all matters will be suitable for Arbitration. Solicitors acting for the parties would need to determine if the matter would be suitable for Arbitration and whether the parties would accept an award made by the Arbitrator which then becomes binding if registered with the Court. However, the costs saving of proceeding by way of Arbitration Australia are considerable. Peter Baston a respected Barrister, who is a qualified Arbitrator, recently published an Article and gave details of his costs for conducting an Arbitration. Article Source: Arbitration Australia |
Categories
All
|