Fam L Rev
We are delighted to announce that Dr Richard Ingleby will be joining The Australian Law Journal team as the new Section Editor of the Family Law section, as our outgoing editor Dr Anthony Dickey QC retires from the post which he has held since 1988. Dr Richard Ingleby becomes the editor of the Family Law Section with extensive experience as ...more
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 Family Law Review is pleased to congratulate Editorial Board member Dr Anna Parker on completing her doctorate and joining the Victorian Bar. Anna’s latest contribution to the journal, “Comparable Cases and the Section 79 Discretion” (2016) 6 Fam L Rev 127, co-authored with Paul Glass, Barrister, Victorian Bar, considers the relevance of previously decided cases ...more
The Family Law Review journal is pleased to welcome two new members to the Editorial Board. Welcome Dr Bridget Cullen Dr Bridget Cullen joins the Family Law Review in the role of Contributing Editor, focusing on the area of Practice and Procedure. In her first contribution to the journal “Forensic restraint by family lawyers – not ...more
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 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.