As reported today in the Sydney Morning Herald, it seems that Brian Myerson has paid a significant price for his philandering ways. He took the ‘box’ rather than the ‘money’ only to find the shares contained in the box became worthless.
This underlines the need to carefully consider the structure of property settlements. At any time, not just during a global financial crisis, cash, where possible, is king.
Interesting statistics relating to outcomes in shared care aplications have been reported by Gavin Howard* in the Autumn edition of the Australian Family Lawyer.
He concludes “that in most cases a lack of willingness or ability to co-operate or communicate will prove fatal to a shared care application.”
* In-House Counsel for Farrar, Gesini & Dunn
I wonder what A.R. Tayson would say about maternity leave?
A TASMANIAN man who went to Thailand to find a sixth wife and put her into domestic servitude has lost three-quarters of his assets, including his house and his business, in a Family Court case.
The court heard that the man, who was born in 1945 and at one point was so obese he could hardly leave his bed, had forced his young bride into hard physical labour throughout the 10-year marriage.
He had been married five times before he travelled to Thailand in 1997 to find her. She was 25 years his junior, and spoke no English.
The man told the court the woman had been working as a prostitute in Thailand and he saved her from that life. She denied it, saying she worked in a factory. In any case, he brought her to Australia soon after they met and set her to work in his market garden outside Hobart, where she toiled for $40 a month. She was also asked to carry out what the judge described as “disgusting” tasks, related to the man’s physical care.
In the course of the marriage, the woman gave birth to four of the man’s children.
The Family Court, sitting in Hobart in April, heard that the husband grew fatter and more sedentary, and had taken to sitting on a stool, waving a large stick and shouting orders at the woman and their children. When she left him, he sought custody of the children, and most of the assets, saying all had belonged to him before the marriage.
Her victory in the court has been hailed by female lawyers and domestic violence support workers as a sign that men should not think they can travel to poor countries and find brides to work as domestic servants.
The judge said the husband was “a huge man, some five foot eight in height, but weighed at his worst, something near 200kg”.
“His enormous weight caused him to be gravely disabled and that he was able to get around only with difficulty,” the judge said.
The wife and two of the children told the court that the husband “tended to lie around in bed; that he tended to play with the computer, and called upon every member of the family to look to his various wants, which included bathing him, dressing him, cleaning up his toiletry and applying ointment to bleeding buttocks”.
“The father in effect was nothing else but a bully,” the judge said. “He demanded that his wants be attended to before anybody else’s. He adopted an authoritarian manner whereby he sat on his stool and waved a large stick at them, demanding that they do certain things in relation to the gardening.
“He insisted that (his wife) carry out physical labouring tasks as well as looking after his more private needs, notwithstanding that she had had a bad caesarean and was in considerable pain.”
The husband told the court he was the victim of domestic violence, and that his wife had once tried to kill him with a meat cleaver. The judge found to the contrary, saying she “worked exceptionally hard”.
The value of the couple’s property was put at $200,000, the total of which was “put in by the father (because) the mother had nothing”.
But the judge said she had done an “enormous amount of work” in the house and the market garden, and awarded her 75 per cent of the assets.
National Council of Women president Margaret Smith hailed the decision as “one of the very good decisions of the Family Court”.
“We mostly hear of cases where men tell their wives they have no rights, they will lose their children, so this should be a signpost to women who find themselves trapped like this, to know there is a way out,” Ms Smith said.
Research conduced by the Child Support Agency shows increased co-operation between parents.
In February 2008, 34% of receiving parents and 40% of paying parents considered their relationship with the other parent “co-operative”. Research undertaken in August 2008 has seen this increase to 49% of receiving parents and 51% of paying parents.
I suspect that the shared parenting laws are having an impact.
When the rule makers of the newly amalgamated court sit down to establish a fresh set of Rules (as I assume they will have to) I ask that they consider the following:First, make the Rules on the basis they will not change for, say, at least 5 years. How many Rule changes have we endured in the past?
Second, consider the impact of cost shifting to the litigant. Many Family Court Rules introduced in recent years have had the effect of increasing costs of litigants so as to reduce the costs of the court by attempting to reduce the length of trials/hearings.
Third, offer more flexibility to introduce adversarial witnesses at an early stage where the issues warrant it and without the requirement of an application to appoint an adversarial witness. In my experience the single expert rule in financial matters is failing the litigants more often than not. I will write more about this later.
The Federal government’s announcement that the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court of Australia will amalgamate at the end of the year should be applauded. What a terrible system we have worked in. Two courts in the same building operating under the same Act with 2 separate sets of rules.
The previous government’s decision to establish a 2 court system seems to have been driven by the previous Family Court Chief Justice’s overt politicking . This period is long past. Court’s should always accept that whilst in many respects they are independent, the politicians have the power to take away their reason for being.
Whilst there are some interesting insider detail issues to resolve, these will mean nothing to the court users - the public and the lawyers. This decision is undoubtedly beneficial to the administration of justice for families.
Fixed term marriage contracts as proposed by Helen Goltz in the Courier Mail today.
Just imagine the stress at renewal time, especially when the `eternity’ contract is on the kitchen table.
Reported in The Australian today are statistics released by the Family Court that fathers who litigate over children’s “custody” are more likely to succeed than by settling with the mother.
This is not an outcome attributable to the recent amendments to the Act. It has ever been thus. These cases that run to trial are generally those where serious issues relating to a father or mother’s parenting ability arise. It is unsurprising that fathers’ success rate is higher.
As a family lawyer with over 26 years experience, Don gives his insight on family law news, issues and procedures.
