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: 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.
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 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 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.