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: “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.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following articles: “Inconsistencies in and the inadequacies of the family counselling and FDR confidentiality and admissibility provisions: The need for reform” – Donna Cooper; and “Let me be me: Parental responsibility, Gillick competence, and transgender minors’ access to hormone treatments” – Katherine France; the following Professional Insights note: “When can a party to contested proceedings have leave to adduce evidence from an adversarial expert when a single expert has already been appointed?” – Richard Ingleby and Anne-Marie Rice; and notes on the following cases: Vadisanis v Vadisanis; Zanda v Zanda; and Cape v Cape.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “Can Part VII of the Family Law Act do what is asked of it?” – Helen Rhoades, John Dewar and Nareeda Lewers; “A national approach to manage vexatious litigation: New powers under the Family Law Act” – Robert Benjamin; and “Do members of a class of beneficiaries of a discretionary trust have a “right” to documents which can be enforced in the Family Court?” – Richard Ingleby. There is also an International Family Law section and a Recent Cases section with notes on the following cases: SCVG v KLD (Shared parental responsibility – Equal or substantial and significant time); Gludau v Gludau; Gludau v Gludau (No 2) (Property – Wrong assessment of contributions – Restitution); Langer v Griffin (Property – Contravention order – Prison sentence).
Thomson Reuters is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr Richard Ingleby, who joins Dr Anthony Dickey QC as co General Editor of Family Law Review. Dr 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. He holds ...more
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following articles: “Applying the s 75(2) factors to the division of family property: A principled approach” – Patrick Parkinson; and “Legal capacity and case guardians – Part 2: The institution of proceedings and appointment of case guardians” – Brendan Ashdown. Also in this Part are the following sections: Family Dispute Resolution: Face-to-face, telephone and online mediation: Advantages and disadvantages; International Family Law: Recognition of foreign marriages and divorces; Recent Cases: Commissioner of Taxation v Darling (Access to and use of documents on court file) and Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (S 75(2) factors – Lack of reasons – Substantial injustice).
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes two articles and several section notes of interest. The first article is by Dr Adiva Sifris and Anna Parker which examines the reforms to the Family Law Act 1975 introduced by the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and other Measures Act) 2011 (Cth) and argues that further reform is needed. The second article comes from Brendan Ashdown and looks at the test for legal capacity and the involvement of case guardians. Also in this Part is a Child Support Update from the Department of Human Services, and note about International Family Law and reports on four recent cases: Bevan v Bevan (Property – Consideration of Stanford); Kane v Kane (Property – “Special considerations”); Burton v Churchin (Children – Parties who are not parents); and Norton v Locke (De facto relationship – Threshold issue of jurisdictional fact).
The latest Part of Family Law Review includes the following articles: “The “grave risk” or “intolerable situation” defence in cases of domestic violence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: When will risk to a parent amount to risk to a child?” – Suzanne Christie; and “A study of outcomes post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention for abducting primary-carer mothers and their children” – Danielle Bozin- Odhiambo. Also included in this Part are the following sections: Professional Insights; Child Support Update; Family Dispute Resolution; and Recent Cases.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes two interesting articles and several section notes. The first article comes from Michael Nicholls QC and describes the rules about jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement in the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention and the effect of them on cases in Australia. The second article is by David Fryer who assesses a parent’s ability to protract proceedings within family law litigation by knowingly making a false allegation of sexual abuse against the other parent. There is also an International Family Law section about surrogacy in California, a book review comments on the following recent cases: Roda v Roda, Craig v Rowlands, Valentine v Lacerra, Wilson v Wilson.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review publishes two interesting article and several different sections. The first article is by the Hon Justice Paul Brereton AM RFD in which two recent adventures of the High Court of Australia in the field of family law are considered. The second article is by Patrick Parkinson AM and considers the implications of the High Court’s decision in Stanford v Stanford. Also in this Part are the following sections: Professional Insights, Child Support, Recent Cases and Family Dispute Resolution.