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: “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 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.
(Published in Child Support Update, Vol 2 Pt 3 (June 2012) of the Family Law Review) By Debbie Hayer Senior Advisor, Department of Human Services INTRODUCTION Child support is generally only payable by a biological or adoptive “parent” of the child. The Australian Government Department of Human Services cannot accept an application for a child ...more
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