The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “If You Want a Picture of the Future, Imagine Mandated Pre-action Procedures, Registrar Case Management and Information Sharing” – Judge Joe Harman; “Accommodating Family Law and Culture in a Diverse Society: The Injunction Power and the Jewish Experience” – Graham Segal OAM; “Certain Unions Are Not Marriages: Predicting Outcomes on Separation for Same-sex Couples Married Overseas” – Louise Cooney and Eliza Tiernan; “Family Law Property Settlements: An Exploratory Quantitative analysis” – Christopher Turnbull; Property and Financial Arrangements: “Post-separation Inheritances: Calvin v McTier  FamCA 125” – Anna Parker and Amanda Pearson; The Child Support: “The Child Support Registrar Appearing Amicus Curiae” – Simon Bacon; and Recent Cases: Kent v Kent, Waterman v Waterman, Arthur v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services, and Tuckson v Elsey.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following material: “Vexatious litigation in family law and coercive control: Ways to improve legal remedies and better protect the victims” – Emma Fitch and Patricia Easteal; “The missing heart of parenting disputes in the Australian family law system: A case for a child-inclusive approach to judicial decision-making” – Stephanie Young; “Thinking outside the Family Law Act: Concepts of fairness in England and Australia compared” – Alison Burt; Child and Parenting: “Re Kelvin: The chance for a new legal approach to hormone treatment for gender dysphoria in young people” – Felicity Bell; Child Support: “Pre-emptive declaratory orders and the enforcement of child support” – Simon Bacon; Property and Financial Arrangements: “Section 90AK of the Family Law Act: Acquisition of property on just terms” – Anna Parker and Shai Sommer; and Recent Cases: Grella v Jamieson, Britt v Britt, Maine v Maine, and Welch v Abney.
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.
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 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: “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 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).