{"id":3433,"date":"2012-03-14T15:55:37","date_gmt":"2012-03-14T04:55:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=3433"},"modified":"2012-03-14T15:55:37","modified_gmt":"2012-03-14T04:55:37","slug":"family-law-review-update-march-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2012\/03\/14\/family-law-review-update-march-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Law Review update: March 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest issue of the Family Law Review<\/em> (Volume 2 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

Family law affidavits<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Justice Stephen Thackray<\/p>\n

This article is an edited version of a paper given at a practitioners\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 conference on the drafting of affidavits, prior to the introduction of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153less adversarial\u00e2\u20ac\u009d procedures. Attention is drawn to relevant provisions of the Family Law Act <\/em>and Family Law Rules<\/em>. Practitioners are given hints about drafting affidavits that are likely to assist the ultimate consumer \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the judge. Some examples of poorly drafted affidavits are given to provide guidance about what not to include in an affidavit. The author recognises the focus is on practice in Western Australia, where routinely \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the practitioner\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is both solicitor and counsel \u00e2\u20ac\u201c and only some of the judges are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153feral\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Use of affidavits in the Family Court<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Peter Hannan<\/p>\n

Trials in the Family Court are usually conducted on affidavits, with oral evidence confined to cross-examination and re-examination. In that sense Family Court trials are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153paper trials\u00e2\u20ac\u009d much like commercial trials in the State Supreme Courts when conducted using witness statements. That said \u00e2\u20ac\u0153trial on affidavit\u00e2\u20ac\u009d raises some peculiar evidential and forensic issues \u00e2\u20ac\u201c which are often not considered in the standard works on evidence and trial advocacy. Those standard works tend to focus on the traditional common law trial where evidence in chief is adduced by question and answer. As with most other courts, interlocutory applications in the Family Court are conducted on affidavit evidence. Again, the use of affidavits, even in an interlocutory context, raises peculiar evidential and forensic issues which have been left largely untouched by the standard textbooks. The aim of this article is to provide practical guidance on the law relating to evidence adduced by affidavit in the Family Court, both at trial and on the hearing of interlocutory applications.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Judges receiving evidence directly from children<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Justice Robert Benjamin<\/p>\n

Since 1976, Family Court judges in Australia have been generally reluctant to see children to ascertain their views. This article explores the concept of judges obtaining children\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s views directly from them and considers the advantages thereof and the reasons why judges may be reluctant. The author, a judge in the Family Court of Australia, discusses examples of proceedings where he has seen children directly, and looks at approaches adopted by different countries\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 courts, particularly the Family Court of New Zealand.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sections<\/h3>\n

CHILD SUPPORT UPDATE<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Child Support Agency<\/em><\/p>\n