Don’s Family Law Blog

It’s good to note that in the turmoil of Federal Parliament this week amendments to provisions relating to agreements have been passed to the Family Law Act. 

The amendments are intended to respond to the uncertainties created by Black v Black and cases relating to the enforceability of agreements.

I have a copy of the Bill and will blog further when time allows.

From the same Federal Magistrates Court judge who delivers, not infrequently, the line “I’m not a family lawyer”, comes the sentence of Mr Clampett to jail time with “hard labour”. 

Most lawyers can’t remember when ‘hard labour’ was last part of the penal system.  Certainly it remains part of the Hollywood penal justice system.  This perhaps justifies the judges new nickname of ‘Jed’.

 This exchange occurred recently in the Federal Magistrates Court between a Judge and Senior Counsel”

His Honour:           … I mean, I have got a matter this afternoon at 2 o’clock which will take about an hour.  I have got a bankruptcy matter tomorrow which will take a couple of hours, and, unfortunately - and I make no apologies for this - The Family Law Practitioners Association seem to have greater wisdom that the collective wisdom of the Supreme, Districts, and Federal Courts of Australia in terms of list requirements, and that is why we list the way that this court seems to list in these matters, and it is nothing to do with me.  I am sorry about that, but take it up with the Family Law Practitioners Association.

Senior Counsel:     It is, with respect, your court, and you —

His Honour:           Well, it is, but, unfortunately, I am not a family lawyer, I don’t understand the politics of it.  I just have to do what I am told to do.  Anyway, you will get as much time as I can give you over the next two days.  But, anyway, we will see how we go.

The parties had been earlier provided with 2 firm days for hearing after failing to be heard as a reserve case in July.

“I am not a family lawyer” declares the judge, thus providing a litigating husband and wife with dread and a complete lack of faith in the process.

 I’ve earlier referred to empirical observations of the role of social networking web sites and relocation of families in family law.  The web sites are enabling introductions and the desire to move.  There is now plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that this phenomenon extends well beyond younger marrieds to older couples.

Facebook, in particular, is creating a stir even for those in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s.  In recent weeks I have been made aware of 3 spouses in their 50’s and 60’s developing relationships with women in the United States as a consequence of, or leading to, marital discord.

It surely was on a year or two ago that these sites were only used by young singles.

It seems the Family Court has taken on a media manager to help polish its tarnished image.  Two cases were prominently reported in The Australian yesterday (link) (link) and one today (link).

I have never before seen such exposure of the Court.  Not coincidentally, all of the decisions have seemed very sensible and showcase what the Court typically does, rather than previous media attention on alleged ‘errors’  of the Family Court.

Judges deserve our respect, and this can be no better explained by the decision a judge in England has been asked to make as reported today (link)

There’s plenty of smoke around suggesting the fire has been lit on making amendments to the children’s provisions of the Family Law Act. The pendulum having swung a long way from the continuity of care principle seems to be swinging back that way.

Governments of all persuasions seem very prone to the influence of single issue pressure groups. I hope lawyers are broadly canvassed for their opinions. Solicitors, in particular, are the best placed to make comment as they are the frontline troops. Judges opinions are of course very relevant, but they are limited in their observation by the fact that they tend to see mostly the extreme cases.

Parents and children need to be broadly listened to.

The least relevant participants in this process should be the pressure groups representing women’s and men’s interests. Typically their ideological approach to issues is only marginally interesting.