Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011

Last updated

Family Law Legislation Amendment Act
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Parliament of Australia
  • An Act to consolidate statutes relating to Family Law.
Royal assent 7 December 2011
Status: Current legislation

The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 is an Act of the Australian Parliament that amends the Family Law Act 1975 . [1] It has four parts and its main amendments involve how courts define and respond to allegations of child abuse and domestic violence. [1]

Contents

Origins

The Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2011 was introduced to the Australian Parliament on 24 March 2011 and came into effect on 7 June 2012. [1] It was implemented in an attempt to respond to the criticisms of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Professor Richard Chisholm and Family Law Council, who all conducted inquiries into the 2006 Act. [2] Professor Chisholm's "Family Courts Violence Review" concluded that the 2006 Family Law Amendment Act's introduction of a shared parental responsibility provision had been misinterpreted by courts and parents as a provision for equal shared care time and had led to parents considering only "their own entitlements rather than what was best for their children". [2] Further, the Australian Institute of Family Studies inquiry "Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms" suggested that the friendly parent provisions had increased the likelihood of a child remaining with a family member who exposed them to family violence. [3] Charles Pragnell from the National Council for Children Post-Separation argued that this occurred as the provision led to "mothers remain[ing] silent about domestic violence" and judges "seeing the right of shared care as the principle overriding consideration...giving custody of children to convicted pedophiles and violent offenders". [4] Based on these inquiries, the Australian Law Reform Commission called for the 2006 Act to be amended. This led to the implementation of the Family Law Legislation Amendment Act in 2011. [5]

Major features

The Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2011 contains two schedules: "Schedule 1- Amendments relating to family violence" and "Schedule 2- Other amendments", which are each divided into two further parts. [1]

New definitions

Schedule 1 of the Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2011 redefined both family violence and child abuse. It redefined family violence to include "controlling actions" and removed the condition that a person must "reasonably" fear for their personal security. [1] In section 4AB it redefined family violence as "violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful". [1] Further, the Act provided an extensive but not exhaustive list of instances of family violence in its new sub-section 4AB(2), which include instances of stalking and repeated derogatory taunts. [1] It also specifies that exposure to family violence occurs when a child sees of hears family violence and listed examples of possible situations of exposure. [6] In redefining child abuse, the Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2011 listed two new categories of behaviour that constitute as abuse; serious neglect and actions that cause serious physiological harm. [6]

Primary consideration

The Family Law Amendment Act 2006 introduced the provision that equal shared responsibility for both parents is the optimal interest of the child. This was based on two of the child's rights, first, their right to have an ongoing relationship with both of their parents and, second, the child's right to be safe from abuse and harm. [1] In subsection 60CC(2) the Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2011 included a provision that if a conflict arises between the two primary best interest considerations, the requirement to ensure a child is safe from harm should be prioritised over the concern for a child's relationship with both parents. [6] This meant that the requirement that a child be protected from abuse became the primary consideration of the court.

Removal of the friendly parent provision

The Family Law Amendment Act 2006 included a provision that required the court to consider how supportive each child's parents were of an supporting an ongoing relationship between their child and the other parent when determining what is best for the child, referred to as the "friendly parent provision" by legal practitioners. [1] The Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2011 removed this provision from the consideration of the court. [7]

Firmer guidelines for dealing with family violence

The Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2011 introduced new provision that the court, legal practitioners, and others must comply with when dealing with the prospect or reality of family violence allegations. [1] These provisions include the requirement that if any party is aware than the child has been the subject of a notification, report, investigation, inquiry or assessment relating to child abuse they must inform the court. [1] Further, the Act specifies that the court must expressly ask all parties in the court if they are aware of or concerned about abuse of the child by their guardians or family members. [6]

Significant cases

Martin v Martin

In the case Martin v Martin [2014] FCCA 2838 the 2011 Family Law Legislation AmendmentAct's expansion of the definition of family violence to include repeated stalking meant that the court granted sole parental responsibility to the mother and prevented the father from going to the child's school or home. [8] The court stated that the father's actions of repeatedly calling the mother late a night, honking his car outside her home and arriving at her children's activities without warning constituted as an "ongoing campaign" of stalking. [7] It found that this behaviour was undertaken with the intent to control and intimidate the mother. [7] The judge concluded that as the Act states that the need to protect a child from harm is the priority of the Family Court and stalking constitutes as family violence the father should be denied access to his children. [7]

Oakes v Oakes

In the case Oakes v Oakes [2014] FamCA 285 the 2011 Family Law Legislation Amendment Act's elevation of the provision that a child be protected from harm to primary consideration resulted in the court granting sole parental responsibility to the mother. [8] The case concerned a three-year-old whose mother was seeking sole parental responsibility and an arrangement where the father would have no contact with his daughter while the father desired a shared time arrangement. [7] Under the Act, the court was required to ask if any party held the belief that the daughter was at risk of abuse. [7] By doing so it was revealed that the father had "made clear and unambiguous threats to kill the mother" and had been domestically abusive before, during and after the separation. [8] The judge argued that the father presented "an unacceptable risk to the child" and cited the "need to protect the child from harm" as the main reason he granted sole responsibility to the mother, banning the father from any contact. [7]

Tindall v Saldo

In the case Tindall v Saldo [2015] FamCAFC the 2011 Family Law Legislation Amendment Act's removal of the "friendly parent provision" in section 60CC(3) of the Family Law Amendment Act 2006 resulted in the Family Court considering the mother's attempts to prohibit a continued relationship between her child and its father as "protective in nature". [8] The mother had appealed against the Family Court's initial decision that she disobeyed court orders, by preventing her child from having supervised time with the father, without a "reasonable excuse". [7] However, in the appeal the court argued that, as this breach occurred while the father was undergoing a criminal trial for domestic and sexual abuse that created a "palpable change in the underlying family dynamic", the mother had acted out of a desire to protect the child from harm. [7] The court claimed that the mother's two day testimony and the father's guilty plea provided reasonable grounds for the mother to have believed she needed to separate the child from its father and that based on the removal of the "friendly parent provision" the court's priority should not be the efforts made by each parent to ensure a continued relationship between their child and the other parent. [7] Hence, the original judgment was set aside. [7]

Influence

Australian Institute of Family Studies Review

In a survey of over 315 lawyers, conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the percentage of family law lawyers who agreed that "the family violence reforms have benefitted children in most cases" increased from 29.5% to 48.3% between 2008 and 2014. [9] During that time the Family Law Legislation Amendment Act was the only family violence reform. [9] Further, the percentage of family law lawyers who believe the reforms "have resulted in fewer children in shared care arrangements where there is high conflict" has increased from 16% to 42.5% in the same time period. [9] The review by the Australian Institute of Family Studies approved of the amendment that made the need to protect children from harm the Family Court's primary considerations, as did 86% of the respondents surveyed, respondents included parents who had dealt with family courts, legal practitioners, lawyers and judges. [9] There was less consensus among respondents on whether "protection from harm is accorded greater weight when relevant" in the Family Courts, only 70% of the respondents agreed. [9]

Australian Law Reform Commission

The Australian Law Reform Commission has critiqued the 2011 Family Law Legislation Amendment Act's failure to address its two of its major recommendations, first, the removal of the mandatory attendance of both parents at Family Dispute Resolution Services and, second, the introduction of a clarification that equal shared parental responsibility does not refer to equal time. [10] Under the Family Law Amendment Act 2006, a court requires a certificate of attendance from Family Dispute Resolution Services that states both parents attended a compulsory mediation session before it can hear a case relating to the custody of a child. [10] While there are exemptions for cases with accusations of family violence, the Australian Law Reform Commission stated in its inquiry into the 2006 Family Law Amendment Act that the family dispute resolution process is "weighted heavily" against women, particularly those who have been victims of domestic abuse, leading to women being "manipulated into agreeing with unjust settlements". [10] The 2006 Family Law Amendment Act also includes a specification that the presumption of shared parental responsibility means the Family Court is obliged "to consider" implementing a custody arrangement that grants both parents equal time or "substantial and significant time", which has been critiqued by the Australian Law Reform Commission and was not amended in the 2011 Family Law Legislation Amendment Act. [11] The Australian Law Reform Commission has claimed that this specification has created "widespread misunderstanding", leading parents to believe that children must spend equal or significant time with both parents. [10] Child protection campaigner Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs has stated that the child being protected from harm "must be elevated to the single primary and paramount consideration", otherwise the "risk of ongoing exposure to domestic violence" will remain. [11]

Proposed reform

On 31 August 2018 the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2018 received its royal assent. [12] The 2018 Act removed the twenty-one day time limit on the "revival, variation or suspension of family law orders by state and territory courts" in cases involving family violence and specified that a court needn't give an explanation of an order or injunction to a child if receiving such an explanation is not in the child's best interest. [12] On 20 May 2018 the Attorney-General Christian Porter announced that the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court will be combined in order to reduce the, on average, "year and a half" wait for families to get their cases heard by a judge. [13] Rick O’Brien, the chair of Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, has described this wait as a "crisis" that "drastically increases the likelihood of a child being exposed to family violence" . [13] The Australian Government estimates that by combining the two courts an extra 8,000 cases will be completed each year. [14] There doesn't currently exist proposed reform[ clarification needed ] that addresses the concerns listed by the Australian Law Reform Commission (see Influence section). [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

The fathers' rights movement is a social movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support, that affect fathers and their children. Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of their children equally with their children's mothers—either after divorce or as unwed fathers—and the children of the terminated marriage. The movement includes men as well as women, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law. Many members of the movement are self-educated in family law, including child custody and support, as they believe that equally-shared parenting time was being unjustly negated by family courts.

A parenting plan is a child custody plan that is negotiated by parents, and which may be included in a marital separation agreement or final decree of divorce. Especially when a separation is acrimonious to begin with, specific agreements about who will discharge these responsibilities and when and how they are to be discharged can reduce the need for litigation. Avoiding litigation spares parties not only the financial and emotional costs of litigation but the uncertainty of how favorable or unfavorable a court's after-the-fact decision will be. Moreover, the agreement itself can authorize the employment of dispute-resolution methods, such as arbitration and mediation, that may be less costly than litigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fathers' rights movement in the United Kingdom</span>

The fathers' rights movement in the United Kingdom consists of a large number of diverse pressure groups, ranging from charities and self-help groups to civil disobedience activists in the United Kingdom, who started to obtain wide publicity in 2003. Studies show the majority of the UK population support the need for change and protection of fathers rights to meet the responsibility through 50:50 contact. The movement's origin can be traced to 1974 when Families Need Fathers (FNF) was founded. At the local level, many activists spend much time providing support for newly separated fathers, most of whom are highly distraught. Although some have been accused of being sexist by some commentators, these groups also campaign for better treatment for excluded mothers, women in second marriages, other step-parents and grandparents – all of whom suffer discrimination in respect of contact with their (grand) child(ren).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Children Act 1989</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Children Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 16 November 1989 and came into substantial force across all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom on 14 October 1991. In 1995, for the purposes of devolution, the Act was replaced by parallel legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. And in 2016, Part III of the Act was replaced in Wales.

Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a term introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in 1985 to describe signs and symptoms he believed to be exhibited by children who have been alienated from one parent through manipulation by the other parent. Proposed symptoms included extreme but unwarranted fear, and disrespect or hostility towards a parent. Gardner believed that a set of behaviors that he observed in some families involved in child custody litigation could be used to diagnose psychological manipulation or undue influence of a child by a parent, typically by the other parent who may be attempting to prevent an ongoing relationship between a child and other family members after family separation or divorce. Use of the term "syndrome" has not been accepted by either the medical or legal communities and Gardner's research has been broadly criticized by legal and mental health scholars for lacking scientific validity and reliability.

In the United Kingdom and the nations of the European Union, parental responsibility refers to the rights and privileges which underpin the relationship between the children and the children's parents and those adults who are granted parental responsibility by either signing a 'parental responsibility agreement' with the mother or getting a 'parental responsibility order' from a court. The terminology for this area of law now includes matters dealt with as contact and residence in some states.

Child custody is a legal term regarding guardianship which is used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent or guardian and a child in that person's care. Child custody consists of legal custody, which is the right to make decisions about the child, and physical custody, which is the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child. Married parents normally have joint legal and physical custody of their children. Decisions about child custody typically arise in proceedings involving divorce, annulment, separation, adoption or parental death. In most jurisdictions child custody is determined in accordance with the best interests of the child standard.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child protection</span> Protecting children from harm and neglect

Child protection is the safeguarding of children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect. It involves identifying signs of potential harm, responding to allegations or suspicions of abuse, providing support and services to protect children, and holding those who have harmed them accountable.

In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where the mother and father have joint physical custody.

Child protective services (CPS) is the name of an agency in many states of the United States responsible for providing child protection, which includes responding to reports of child abuse or neglect. Some states use other names, often attempting to reflect more family-centered practices, such as department of children and family services (DCFS). CPS is also sometimes known by the name of department of social services, though these terms more often have a broader meaning.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Law Act 1975</span>

The Family Law Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. It has 15 parts and is the primary piece of legislation dealing with divorce, parenting arrangements between separated parents (whether married or not), property separation, and financial maintenance involving children or divorced or separated de facto partners: in Australia. It also covers family violence. It came into effect on 5 January 1976, repealing the Matrimonial Causes Act 1961, which had been largely based on fault. On the first day of its enactment, 200 applications for divorce were filed in the Melbourne registry office of the Family Court of Australia, and 80 were filed in Adelaide, while only 32 were filed in Sydney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tender years doctrine</span>

The tender years doctrine is a legal principle in family law since the late 19th century. In common law, it presumes that during a child's "tender" years, the mother should have custody of the child. The doctrine often arises in divorce proceedings.

The fathers' rights movement has simultaneously evolved in many countries, advocating for shared parenting after divorce or separation, and the right of children and fathers to have close and meaningful relationships. This article provides details about the fathers' rights movement in specific countries.

The fathers' rights movement in Australia focus on issues of erosion of the family unit, child custody, shared parenting, child access, child support, domestic violence against men, false allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, the reintroduction of fault into divorce proceedings, gender bias, the adversarial family court system and secrecy issues.

<i>MRR v GR</i> Court case in Australia about who a child should live with

MRR v GR was an Australian family law case concerning who the child should live with where the father wanted to remain living in Mount Isa, Queensland while the mother wanted to return to live in Sydney, NSW. The Family Law Act 1975 makes the "best interests of the child" the paramount consideration when making a parenting order. The High Court of Australia decided that a Federal Magistrate erred by failing to consider the "reasonable practicability" of a parenting order with an equal time arrangement that required the mother to live in Mount Isa. The matter was decided on 3 December 2009 with reasons subsequently published on 3 March 2010.

Law in Australia with regard to children is often based on what is considered to be in the best interest of the child. The traditional and often used assumption is that children need both a mother and a father, which plays an important role in divorce and custodial proceedings, and has carried over into adoption and fertility procedures. As of April 2018 all Australian states and territories allow adoption by same-sex couples.

Forced adoption is the practice of removing children permanently from their parents and the subsequent adoption of those children, following intervention by the Children's Services department of a Local Authority in the United Kingdom.

Edward Kruk is a Canadian sociologist and social worker. He has conducted internationally recognized research on child custody, shared parenting, family mediation, divorced fathers, parental alienation, parental addiction, child protection, and grandparent access to their grandchildren. Kruk is an associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia. He is the founding president of the International Council on Shared Parenting.

Parenting law in Australia encompasses a number of areas of law including:

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011". www.legislation.gov.au. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  2. 1 2 "Family law is failing kids". ABC News. 26 May 2011. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  3. ↑ "Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms". Australian Institute of Family Studies. 29 December 2009. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  4. ↑ Wood, Alicia (27 March 2010). "Cries of child abuse bounce back on mums". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  5. ↑ "Concurrent inquiries and actions". 21 October 2010. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  6. 1 2 3 4 "Changes to family violence law". State Library of NSW. 15 December 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "4. Published judgments and the application of the 2012 family violence amendments". Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  8. 1 2 3 4 "Appendix 1: List of judgments analysed in section 4.3". Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 "2. Overview of the effects of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth)". Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 "Inquiry into the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011". www.humanrights.gov.au. 14 December 2012. Retrieved 3 November 2018.
  11. 1 2 Griffin, Andrea Petrie and Michelle (16 August 2011). "The kids are not all right". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 3 November 2018.
  12. 1 2 "Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2018" . Retrieved 3 November 2018.
  13. 1 2 "Sweeping changes to family court announced as broader review of strained system continues". ABC News. 30 May 2018. Retrieved 3 November 2018.
  14. ↑ Family Court to be merged with Federal Circuit Court to speed up case processing, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 30 May 2018, retrieved 3 November 2018
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.