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.
We are pleased to announce that former Family Court of Australia Justice, the Hon Jennifer Boland is joining the team for Family Law Review. She will be the co-General Editor, working alongside Anthony Dickey QC, one of the leading family lawyers in Australia.
Family Dispute Resolution: The Importance of an Intake By Linda Kochanski Any form of mediation requires the mediator to conduct an intake or pre-mediation assessment to see if the issues and the parties are suitable to proceed to mediation. The power of the intake is seen most effectively in family mediation, which now most commonly ...more
The June 2011 issue of Family Law Review contains several interesting pieces about various aspects of family law, including Professional Insights, Recent Cases and International Family Law. There is also an article about collaborative law in Australia, with particular reference to family lawyers in the ACT.
Court Orders for Child Support Other than in Periodic Amounts: Payment of Child Support in a Lump Sum By Ken McWhinney* Part VII, Div 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the Assessment Act) provides, upon application to the court by the carer entitled to child support or the liable parent, a mechanism ...more
In a surprising, but welcome, move, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, has announced the scrapping of the prescriptive quality indicators for journals.
The grading of journals as A*, A, B or C will no longer be applied and these gradings will no longer be the indicators of research excellence.
Over 2009 and 2010, the Australian Research Council undertook to rank journals in the Arts & Humanities Sector as part of the “Excellence in Research for Australia” initiative. Law journals were included in the ranking. Now the rankings that were assigned are being reviewed and new rankings will be released in 2012. Thomson Reuters has observed there may be some unintended long-term consequences of the ERA methodology and outcomes. To communicate these concerns, we have released a position statement.
By Michael Nicholls QC. This paper is based on a talk given in London in July 2010 at the Centre for Family Law and Practice’s conference on international child abduction, relocation and forced marriage. The purpose of the talk was to describe what to expect when making an application for the return of a child wrongfully removed to, or retained in, Australia, and why.
By Alexandra Harland. This section discusses the laws regulating binding financial agreements, in the context of recent cases dealing with various aspects of financial agreements. The section also discusses NZ subpoenas, in the context of recent legislative changes and their impact on the cooperative scheme with Australia.
By Peter Hannan. In this article the author considers the width of the concept of “property” for the purposes of s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in light of the 2008 decision of the High Court in Kennon v Spry, and also the subsequent litigation between the parties.