*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Family Law Review<\/em> (Volume 5 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n Comment on the 2015 report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program<\/a><\/em><\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Maria Vnuk, Bruce Smyth and Tempe Archer<\/p>\n On 27 March 2014, the then Minister for Social Services, the Hon Kevin Andrews MP, asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs to inquire into and report on the Australian Child Support Program. Some 16 months later (20 July 2015), following an extensive public consultation process, the Committee tabled its report and concluded that the Child Support Program was \u00e2\u20ac\u0153generally functioning as intended\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. In this article, the authors: (a) examine the background and political undercurrents to the Inquiry; (b) consider the scope of the Inquiry\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Terms of Reference; (c) review the sources of the written and oral submissions; and (d) examine the Committee\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recommendations. It is argued that while many of the recommendations look sensible and have merit, there is likely to be little capacity or political will to act on the recommendations in the current economic and political environment.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reconceptualising the treatment of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153notional\u00e2\u20ac\u009d assets in property settlement proceedings<\/a><\/em><\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Richard Ingleby<\/p>\n This article discusses how the concept of marriage as a partnership could be combined with the Stanford <\/em>emphasis on legal and equitable interests to provide a new way to approach the treatment of notional assets in proceedings for property adjustment.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS<\/a><\/p>\n The Notice of Risk: Why it is important and how to complete it <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Joe Harman<\/em><\/p>\n A Notice of Risk is now required to be filed with all applications for parenting orders in the Federal Circuit Court. This article discusses the importance of the Notice of Risk in raising issues of family violence or child abuse, and the requirement for it to be filed in all matters. It also provides guidance as to how to complete the notice effectively.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n CHILDREN AND PARENTING<\/a><\/p>\n Who is a parent and why does it matter? <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Felicity Bell<\/em><\/p>\n This article first examines the possible distinction drawn between parents and non-parents when it comes to assessing a child\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s best interests under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 <\/em>(Cth). The decision of the Full Court in Burton v Churchin <\/em>suggests that parents and non-parents must be treated differently in decisions about parenting. Second, the article discusses who may be considered to be a parent under the Family Law Act <\/em>and under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 <\/em>(Cth), and the problematic disjuncture between legal, social and biological parenthood.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n CHILD SUPPORT<\/a><\/p>\n Informality in child support litigation <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Simon Bacon<\/em><\/p>\n In Babett v Falconer <\/em>[2015] FamCAFC 124 the Full Court recognised that a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153less restrictive approach\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is called for in child support litigation. What are the boundaries of this \u00e2\u20ac\u0153less restrictive approach\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and how does that approach operate in practice?<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION<\/a><\/p>\n Facilitative mediation in the family law arena: A good idea or an unreachable goal? <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Tamsyn Hinksman <\/em>and Anne-Marie Rice<\/em><\/p>\n This article considers the application of the facilitative mediation model in family law disputes and explores the advantages and disadvantages of its application.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Judge Geoffrey Monahan (Ed) <\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Michelle Fernando <\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Dean Foley <\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Olivia Rundle<\/em><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0Fam L Rev Vol 5 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n