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 the following material: “Can Part VII of the Family Law Act do what is asked of it?” – Helen Rhoades, John Dewar and Nareeda Lewers; “A national approach to manage vexatious litigation: New powers under the Family Law Act” – Robert Benjamin; and “Do members of a class of beneficiaries of a discretionary trust have a “right” to documents which can be enforced in the Family Court?” – Richard Ingleby. There is also an International Family Law section and a Recent Cases section with notes on the following cases: SCVG v KLD (Shared parental responsibility – Equal or substantial and significant time); Gludau v Gludau; Gludau v Gludau (No 2) (Property – Wrong assessment of contributions – Restitution); Langer v Griffin (Property – Contravention order – Prison sentence).
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following articles: “Applying the s 75(2) factors to the division of family property: A principled approach” – Patrick Parkinson; and “Legal capacity and case guardians – Part 2: The institution of proceedings and appointment of case guardians” – Brendan Ashdown. Also in this Part are the following sections: Family Dispute Resolution: Face-to-face, telephone and online mediation: Advantages and disadvantages; International Family Law: Recognition of foreign marriages and divorces; Recent Cases: Commissioner of Taxation v Darling (Access to and use of documents on court file) and Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (S 75(2) factors – Lack of reasons – Substantial injustice).
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.
The final Part of Volume 2 of the Family Law Review publishes an article by Michelle Fernando that argues the need for guidelines to be promulgated by the Family Law Courts that give direction to judges on how to meet with children who are the subject of parenting disputes and an article by Danielle Jaku-Greenfield that discusses importance of clear protocols for cooperation between family relationship service providers and family lawyers. Also in this Part are a Family Dispute Resolution, International Family Law and Recent Cases sections.