Neither spouse had accepted the valuer’s evidence as to value and each had indicated they wanted both properties.

The auctioneer took 20 bids on the first auction and 35 on the second.  As the hammer went down one property each was secured, at what appeared to be competitive but reasonable prices.

Thereby the court dodged the need to make findings as to value and as to who should receive the properties in a property settlement.  The parties were stressed, but satisfied with the process.  It was a good idea, well executed.

*This I think means that 5.4 people per 1000 divorced in 1980,  5.6 in 1999 and 4.4 in 2008.  Problem with this is, that you if you speak to the Beureau of Statistics they don’t know.

George Brandis has a different approach to restructuring the federal family law courts than the government.  From my perspective I care little about how a restructure takes place.  Right now it is silly to have 2 courts side by side doing the same business. Both sides agree with that.

The Attorney-General announced a new approach to deal with “dysfunctional parents” by further empowering family relationship centre to “positively intervene in a parent’s life”.   Can’t be bad, but we will have to wait and see what the reality will be.

 The Attorney-General also announced a policy to direct more cases to arbitration.  The privatisation of the court’s function will be good for the lawyers, but we shall see (especially given the punters reluctance to arbitrate so far).  Overall, I can’t help you with your voting intentions.

The study’s conclusion should be no surprise to most social scientists and family lawyers.  Dealing with the apparent conflicting aims of the legislation and the developmental needs of infants is a constant challenge for family lawyers.  It’s in many ways not a role for lawyers (or Judges).  I typically refer clients to a child psychologist and invite the other parent to participate.  My hope is that the psychologist will manage the evolution of the relationship of the child with both parents whilst catering for the developmental needs of the child.

It suggests that the (Al) Gore family is such a cluster with 2 separations in a month and 1 preceding this.  Then, maybe Al’s reported wrestling with a masseuse had something to do with it.  Or maybe it’s ‘global warming’ at work … I suspect that would be Al’s theory.

I have not read the case, however, it seems to me the Federal Magistrate had no choice where the Department of Human Services saw no need to be involved with the family.   The case exemplifies a common problem for judges exercising family law jurisdiction as to what to do where the competing parenting options are both unsuitable and the state welfare authorities see no need to be involved.

Judging is not about good and evil and black and white, but more commonly dealing with shades of grey.

I know nothing other than is publicly reported about this case.  My guess is that the wife’s settlement expectations are diminishing fast having spent a lot of money chasing an illusory goal.  I would also guess that she has been well advised about her prospects of success by her solicitor.

It is easier to blame someone else than take responsibility.  Unfortunately for solicitors we are governed by a system that is heavily loaded in favour of the client.  In fact, I suspect that as a group family law solicitors are provided with the worst protection in contracts.

Barry.Nilsson. instructed Jenny Hogan. The costs thrown away by the parties are significant.  Who should pay?

There have been some opinions expressed about this case that I will not repeat.  Justice Barry should hope “it all goes away”.