Family Law Review (Fam L Rev)
Dedicated discussion of contemporary family law
About the Journal
This peer-reviewed journal takes an interdisciplinary approach to a broad range of family law issues, including: family dispute resolution; children and parenting matters; property settlement and financial arrangements; child support; de facto relationships; international family law; and family law practice and procedure.
A dedicated forum for the discussion of contemporary family law issues, Family Law Review (ISSN: 1837-8757) also monitors emerging developments in family law practice.
The broad range of topics covered – and the combination of analytical articles and practice-focused commentary – provides guidance and insight for family law practitioners and academics alike.
In addition to peer-reviewed, feature articles, Family Law Review provides topical and practice-focused commentary in dedicated sections, including: Professional Insights, Family Dispute Resolution, Child Support, Children and Parenting and more. The journal also provides summaries of significant recent Family Court decisions in the Recent Cases section.
The journal is overseen by General Editor Dr Richard Ingleby, a leading family law practitioner with extensive academic experience.
The General Editor is assisted by a specialist Editorial Board, consisting of members of the judiciary, experienced family law practitioners and academics, to provide extensive coverage of significant issues and developments in family law.
Dr Richard Ingleby is a member of the Victorian Bar and an interstate member of the Western Australia Bar. He specialises in appellate matters and complex financial cases. Dr Ingleby is an Honorary Fellow of the Law Faculty at the University of Western Australia and has previously had academic or visiting appointments at: North China University; Deakin University; The University of Melbourne; Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Wolfson College, Oxford; Ohio State University; and Manchester University. He was National Examiner for the Family Law Specialisation Accreditation in 2011 and 2013.
Editorial Board: Consulting Editors
The Honourable Jennifer Boland AM, Former Judge of the Appeal Division of the Family Court of Australia
Dr Rachel Carson, Australian Institute of Family Studies
Dr Anthony Dickey QC, Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Courts of Victoria and Western Australia
Judge Alexandra Harland, Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Dr Fiona Kelly, La Trobe University
Judge Geoffrey Monahan, Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Dr Adiva Sifris, Monash University
Dr Bruce Smyth, Australian National University
Editorial Board: Contributing Editors
Mr Simon Bacon, Manby and Scott, Melbourne
Dr Felicity Bell, University of Wollongong
Dr Bridget Cullen, Legal Member, Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Ms Linda Kochanski, Bond University
Dr Anna Parker, Barrister of the Supreme Court of Victoria
Ms Anne-Marie Rice, Rice Naughton McCarthy
Mr Trevor McKenna, Worrall Lawyers, Hobart
Mr Dean Foley, Murdoch Lawyers, Brisbane
Mr Trevor McKenna, Worrall Lawyers, Hobart
Dr Olivia Rundle, University of Tasmania
Subscribe or Purchase
To subscribe to this Journal or purchase individual articles, please visit our “Subscribe or Purchase” page.
For the individual contents pages for each Part, click here.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “The prevalence of allegations of family violence in proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia” – Judge Joe Harman; “Another tool in their arsenal? The potential of domestic violence typologies to inform family law alternative dispute resolution processes” – Hayley Boxall and Dr Jason Payne; “The reach and efficacy of s 121 of the Family Law Act” – Sharon Rodrick and Adiva Sifris; Child Support: “Child support and the autochthonous expedient” – Simon Bacon; Property and Financial Arrangements: “Justice, equity and alteration of individual property interests” – Will Stidston and Anna Parker; Practice and Procedure: “The teetering capacity of family law litigants: The risks to mentally ill litigants when the court is unaware they lack capacity” – Bridget Cullen; In the High Court: “Parenting orders, children’s views, order in favour of ‘strangers’: Bondelmonte – Dean Foley; and Recent Cases: Lane v Nichols, Masters v Cheyne, Fewster v Drake, and Russo v Wylie.
We are delighted to announce that Dr Richard Ingleby will be joining The Australian Law Journal team as the new Section Editor of the Family Law section, as our outgoing editor Dr Anthony Dickey QC retires from the post which he has held since 1988. Dr Richard Ingleby becomes the editor of the Family Law Section with extensive experience as ...more
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “Understanding discretionary trust structures in family law” – Grant T Riethmuller; “Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: The consideration of habitual residence in Australian courts” – Patricia Easteal AM, Joshua Favaloro and Fanny Thornton; “What happened in the Baby Gammy surrogacy case?” – Michael Nicholls QC; Children and Parenting: “State child welfare departments and federal family law matters” – Felicity Bell; Property and Financial Arrangements: “The treatment of uncertain liabilities in applications under s 79 of the Family Law Act” – Anna Parker; Family Dispute Resolution: “Pro bono mediation and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in Brisbane: Lessons learned” – Donna Cooper; and Recent Cases: Salah v Salah; Oswald v Karrington; and Lindsey v Christie.
The Family Law Review is pleased to congratulate Editorial Board member Dr Anna Parker on completing her doctorate and joining the Victorian Bar. Anna’s latest contribution to the journal, “Comparable Cases and the Section 79 Discretion” (2016) 6 Fam L Rev 127, co-authored with Paul Glass, Barrister, Victorian Bar, considers the relevance of previously decided cases ...more
The Family Law Review journal is pleased to welcome two new members to the Editorial Board. Welcome Dr Bridget Cullen Dr Bridget Cullen joins the Family Law Review in the role of Contributing Editor, focusing on the area of Practice and Procedure. In her first contribution to the journal “Forensic restraint by family lawyers – not ...more
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “Children’s rights to culture in Australia: How FDR mediation can support these rights” – Mieke Brandon and Beth Dababneh; “Restraining legal practitioners” – Michael Kearney SC; “Superannuation splitting and family law” – Anne-Marie Rice and Joseph Box; Professional Insights: “Ethical obligations and duties in family law” – Chris Gunson SC; Child Support: “The doctrine of set off and child support” – Simon Bacon; Property and Financial Arrangements: “Comparable cases and the section 79 discretion” – Paul Glass and Anna Parker; Practice and Procedure: “Forensic restraint by family lawyers – not an optional extra” – Bridget Cullen; In the High Court: “Spousal maintenance and ‘financial resources’: Hall v Hall” – Olivia Rundle; and Recent Cases: Grier v Malphas; Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte; and Faukland v Shikia.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: an Editorial piece on the retirement of Dr Anthony Dickey QC as co-General Editor of the Journal; “Propagating principles for property matters in an arid landscape: A mirage or oasis?” – Brendan Ashdown; “Financial (dis)agreements: A critical appraisal of the Family Law Amendment (Financial Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2015” – Genevieve Smit; Children and Parenting: “Expert reports” – Felicity Bell; Child Support: “The fog of overseas child support” – Simon Bacon; and Recent Cases: Saintclaire v Saintclaire; Commonwealth Central Authority v Cavanaugh; Child Support Registrar v Higgins; Child Support Registrar v Scullin (SSAT Appeal); and Slocomb v Hedgewood.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “Comment on the 2015 report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program” – Maria Vnuk, Bruce Smyth and Tempe Archer; “Reconceptualising the treatment of “notional” assets in property settlement proceedings” – Richard Ingleby; Professional Insights: “The Notice of Risk: Why it is important and how to complete it” – Joe Harman; Children and Parenting: “Who is a parent and why does it matter?” – Felicity Bell; Child Support: “Informality in child support litigation” – Simon Bacon; Family Dispute Resolution: “Facilitative mediation in the family law arena: A good idea or an unreachable goal?” – Tamsyn Hinksman and Anne-Marie Rice; and Recent Cases: Donald v Forsyth; Elgin v Elgin; Jackson v Macek; and Janssen v Janssen.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “Judicial expression of a preliminary view” – Felicity Bell; “Social media evidence in family law: What can be used and its probative value” – Victoria Blakeley, Patricia Easteal, Emma Fitch and Jessica Kennedy; Professional Insights: “Public law issues in a private law system: Child protection and family law” – Robert Benjamin; Property and Financial Arrangements: “Not so special: Fields v Smith and the assessment of contributions in family law property matters” – Anna Parker; Child Support: “The vexed question of s 116(1)(b) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act” – Simon Bacon; and Recent Cases: Fields v Smith; Jurchenko v Foster; Carriel v Lendrum; Winch v Jackson; and Bilal v Omar.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following articles: “Appropriate dispute resolution in cases of family violence and the collaborative practice model” – Katrina Markwick; and “Collaborative practice in family law matters with coercive control-type family violence: Preliminary thoughts from the practitioner coalface” – Patricia Easteal, Jessica Herbert and Jessica Kennedy. There is also a Professional Insights sections: “Family dispute resolution: 12 steps for practitioners to minimise the risk of complaints” – Mieke Brandon; and a Recent Cases section including notes on the following cases: Everett v Everett; Thomas v Franklin; Adamson v Adamson; and Delamarre v Asprey.