A recent report on Channel Ten's 'The Project' explored the concept of parental equality and the manner in which fathers have historically been cast as the secondary parent.
However, it is important to note that this social perception is not necessarily followed by the Family Court when deciding parenting matters.
After amendments to the Family Law Act in 2006, in parenting cases where there is no risk of child abuse, the Court is required to apply a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility as its starting point.
In a recent case, the Family Court of Australia has sought public assistance to help locate Annaleise Grace Harris-Edwards, who is believed to be with her maternal grandmother, Bronwyn Edwards.
On 8 October 2012 the Family Court of Australia ordered that 4 year old Annaleise Grace Harris-Edwards (DOB 20 December 2007) live with her father. When her father attended her preschool to pick her up Annaleise was not there and has not been seen since.
The Family Court of Australia has now made orders for Annaleise's recovery
In a recent decision of the Family Court of Western Australia, Justice Crisford ruled that a 14 year arrangement between two parties involving regular intimacy and a shared living space was not a de facto relationship but “in common parlance, they were friends with benefits”.
Newspaper headlines have been flooded with the recent decision of the Full Bench of the Family Court of Australia where four sisters having lived with their Mother in Australia for the last two years, have been ordered to return to Italy to live with their Father under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague Convention”).
- We recently acted for a wife who was struggling to makes ends meet pending the final resolution of the parties' financial arrangements post-divorce.
Recently there have been complaints in the news from a mistress who is disputing with a well known former cricketer how much child support he should be paying. According to newspaper reports he says he is paying the assessed amount and she says he should be paying her more. How can this happen?
The Child Support Agency has a set formula for child support payments. It is based on a number of variables, including a party’s tax return. It is well known that tax returns may not be the final say in how much money a person takes home.
In a previous blog we indicated that the Federal Government had decided to treat separating couples in the same way whether they were married or not - proof has no come to pass. The Federal Government isn’t interested in the fact that you chose to not marry. Married; not married, all the same provided you lived together for 2 years or have a child of the relationship.
A newspaper recently reported that from January 2007 to April 2010, 48 men have won back a total of $434,378.64 assessed by the Child Support Agency. These men used DNA testing to prove they were not biological fathers of the children they had been supporting.
Under the Child Support (Assessment) Act a man can apply for a refund of Child Support, if it is subsequently established that he is not father of the child concerned. This can heavily penalise a child financially, through no fault of their own.
You may have heard some discussion of a property settlement between a prominent Australian cricketer and his former model fiancée. The circumstances set out below are based only on media reports and set out as a hypothetical, given we have little idea of the true details.
As set out in previous ‘blogs (see 9 and 16 September 2009), to apply for property distribution orders under the Family Law Act a de facto couple must either:
In a decision that confirms the worst nightmares of many non-custodial parents, Her Honour Justice Bennett in Wang v Dennison (No 2) declined to Order that the parties two young children live with or spend any time with their father despite some astounding findings.
Her Honour found the mother had “purposefully conditioned the children to believe that they had been sexually abused by their father when they had not” and that she had done so “in order to cut the father out of the lives of the children".
Subscribe to the RSS Feed ot the Aitken Partners Blog