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: “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 Family Law Review includes the following articles: “The “grave risk” or “intolerable situation” defence in cases of domestic violence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: When will risk to a parent amount to risk to a child?” – Suzanne Christie; and “A study of outcomes post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention for abducting primary-carer mothers and their children” – Danielle Bozin- Odhiambo. Also included in this Part are the following sections: Professional Insights; Child Support Update; Family Dispute Resolution; and Recent Cases.
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.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review publishes an article by Danielle Bozin-Odhiambo which critiques the usefulness of habitual residence as the sole connecting factor in Hague Convention child abduction cases. There are also two notes in Professional Insights, a Child Support Update, an International Family Law section, two notes regarding cases before the High Court and a Recent Cases section. Something for everyone!
The latest Part of the Family Law Review contains the usual interesting mix of articles and sections covering a wide range of topics including admissions made in the context of financial proceedings, eligibility criteria for assisted reproductive treatment, common intention constructive trusts in the context of the family home, de facto financial claims, child support, family dispute resolution, parenting disputes and much more!
The June 2011 issue of Family Law Review contains several interesting pieces about various aspects of family law, including Professional Insights, Recent Cases and International Family Law. There is also an article about collaborative law in Australia, with particular reference to family lawyers in the ACT.