Don’s Family Law Blog

The Courier Mail reported on the weekend that Brisbane is the divorce capital of Australia, based on the Federal Magistrates Court 2008-2009 Annual Report.

`Celebrity’ demographer, Bernard Salt, was trotted out to attempt to explain the anomaly.  Alas, it’s not a particularly interesting story.

 The number of divorce applications filed in each city as stated in the article did not take into account that the greater Melbourne and Sydney areas are serviced by 2 registries each (Melbourne and Dandenong and Sydney and Parramatta) while Brisbane has only 1 registry.

If the figures for each of the 2 supporting registries in the southern states are combined: Melbourne/Dandenong (12,373), Sydney/Parramatta (12,251) then it seems Brisbane (9,894) has been crowned unfairly.

Some interesting quotes have been circulating from a Full Court judgment in an appeal from a Family Court judgment.

Taking inspiration from Donald Rumsfeld (known unknowns and unknown unknowns etc) the trial judge stated:

“In other words, as a general forensic rule the usual is more likely to occur than the unusual but the unlikely sometimes happens though not very often.  Once the likely is rejected then the unlikely may be more likely to be true.”

The judge also wrote:

“a reasonable starting point is the supposition that husbands do not normally cheat former wives out of their fair share of the property.”

Too true!

The word is out, about a Brisbane family lawyer who provided a drinking bottle full of vodka in his 13 year old’s school lunch box.  Welfare authorities are not investigating as it has been explained that the vodka was ‘contraband’ placed in the refrigerator belonging to an older child.

Would like to have seen the face of the 13 year old on the first swig.

Good story, (Courier Mail 29.01.10) but it shows you need to be careful you talk to.

I’ve had no time to blog since my return from holidays.   The papers are full of predictions of changes to parenting arrangements post separation.

My tip -  There will be little change.

The results of the 2009 cohort have now been received by the candidates.   Unfortunately, only 9 of the 29 candidates succeeded.  The exam and the mock file caused the most grief.

A recurrent criticism of candidates work in the mock file was the failure to advise the client.  It is not enough merely to identify issues.  An essential element of being a family lawyer is to advise.  It seems trite, but clients actually wnat to know what is going to happen to them. 

News from the U.K. of an entrepreneurial offering by a divorce law firm.  The ultimate Christmas gift for the spouse who should move on.  Ho. Ho. Ho.

 I remember a time when a genuinely urgent court application could be listed and heard urgently.  In that time I could advise a client that the court would hear a matter as quickly as it was urgent.

Come to the present.   The listing procedures of the Family Law Courts generally make a mockery of urgency.   Long return dates on urgent applications merely encourage self help.   Parents take matters into their own hands and issues which could be nipped in the bud develop into problems which inevitably will ultimately involve more court time and expense or, worse, the affected party turning away from the process.

We are seeing many families where one parent takes control of the children at separation and denies any or adequate contact with the other parent.  The need to gain a Section 60i certificate and then the court waiting lists means that 4 or more months can pass before the issue is dealt with.

Similarly, the court seems reluctant to enforce its own orders on a timely basis.  What is the point of the judicial process if a court wont enforce its own orders.

I’m aware of the resources issue.  No-one would criticize the Federal Magistrates over their attitude to their unrelenting workload.  But surely, it is possible to have an urgent list outside the docket system where a Federal Magistrate can determine the degree of urgency, list for further hearing and make a quick “band aid” decision.  That’s what used to happen when I would advise clients that the court reacted quickly when necessary.

Last night the Family Law Practitioners Association celebrated not only the Christmas season, but also the imminent retirement of Justice Brian Jordan and the announcement of Zoe Rathus as the winner of the Travis Lindenmeyer award for services to family law.

Justice Jordan will be missed.  His even temperament, good humour and soundness will, all likelihood, not be replaced.

Zoe Rathus, a self-described feminist lawyer, is a worthy winner.   Her huge commitment to community legal services through her long service to the Women’s Legal Service and to teaching qualified her as a popular selection.