DOCSLIB.ORG

Part Company: Spousal Maintenance Under the Australian Family Law Act Geoff Wilson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part Company: Spousal Maintenance Under the Australian Family Law Act Geoff Wilson FEBRUARY 2018 Part Company: Spousal Maintenance under the Australian Family Law Act Geoff Wilson Author details Geoff Wilson Partner Accredited Family Law Specialist Fellow of IAFL P +61 7 3024 0360 E [email protected] Part Company: Spousal Maintenance under the Australian Family Law Act c. Unless both of these conditions 2. The liability of a party to a marriage Background are satisfied there is no maintenance to maintain the other party that is liability between spouses (Budding imposed by sections 72(1) / 90SF(1) is [2009] FamCAFC 165) crystalized by the making of an order The “clean break” principle to spousal under section 74(1) / 90SE(1) which maintenance is ensconced in sections As to “adequate support” refer to provides: 81 and 90ST of the Family Law Act Brown (2007) FLC ¶93-316; Bevan 1975 (Commonwealth of Australia) (1995) FLC ¶92-600; Nutting (1978) FLC “In proceedings with respect to the which provides: ¶90-410 and the following: maintenance of a party to a marriage / [After the breakdown of a de facto “the court shall, as far as practicable, a. There is no fettering principle that relationship], the court may make such make such orders as will finally pre-separation standard of living must order as it considers proper for the determine the financial relationships automatically be awarded where the provision of maintenance in accordance between the parties to the marriage respondent’s means permit it (Bevan); with this Part.” and avoid further proceedings b. The word ‘adequately’ is not to between them.” be determined according to any fixed 3. A court exercising the power or absolute standard but having regard conferred by section 74(1) / 90SE(1) The current approach to spousal to the matters referred to in sec 75(2) is obliged by section 75(2) / 90SF(3) maintenance in Australia was held by the (Mitchell (1995) FLC ¶92-601); to take into account the matters High Court of Australia in Hall and Hall referred to in section 75(2) / 90SF(3) c. The idea that ‘adequate’ means (2016) FLC ¶93-709 [2016] HCA 23 at [3]- and only those matters. Those matters a subsistence level has been firmly [5] to be as follows: are presented as a comprehensive rejected and should pay proper regard checklist or shopping list. Some of the to the factors set out in section 75(2) 1. The gateway to the operation of Part factors listed include: VIII (for marriages) and Part VIIIAB (for (Budding [2009] FamCAFC 165); de facto relationships) of the Family d. Where possible both spouses ““(a) the age and state of health of each Law Act in relation to spousal should continue to live after separation of the parties; and at the level which they previously maintenance is section 72(1) (for (b) the income, property and financial enjoyed if this is reasonable, although marriages) and section 90SF(1) (for de resources of each of the parties and the parties’ standard of living may have facto relationships) of the Family Law the physical and mental capacity of to be lower if financial resources are Act which provides: each of them for appropriate gainful insufficient to maintain that standard; employment; and “A party to a marriage is liable to e. In some circumstances it may (g) where the parties have separated or maintain the other party, to the be reasonable for the parties to live divorced, a standard of living that in all extent that the first-mentioned at a higher standard than previously the circumstances is reasonable; and party is reasonably able to do so, enjoyed; (h) the extent to which the payment if, and only if, that other party is f. It is not necessary for an of maintenance to the party whose unable to support herself or himself applicant for spousal maintenance to maintenance is under consideration adequately whether: use up all capital in order to satisfy would increase the earning capacity the requirement of adequate support. of that party by enabling that party a. by reason of having the care and Where the line is drawn depends on the to undertake a course of education control of a child of the marriage who circumstances of the case (Mitchell); has not attained the age of 18 years; or training or to establish himself or g. An applicant is not entitled to b. by reason of age or physical herself in a business or otherwise to live at a level of considerable luxury obtain an adequate income; and or mental incapacity for appropriate or comfort merely because the other (k) the duration of the marriage and gainful employment; or party is very wealthy (Brady (1978) the extent to which it has affected the c. for any other adequate reason; FLC ¶90–513) and there is no general earning capacity of the party whose rule that the pre-separation standard maintenance is under consideration; having regard to any relevant matter of living should be maintained simply [Note Nygh J in Hirst & Rosen (1982) referred to in subsection 75(2).” because the other spouse can afford to FLC ¶91-230 held: “It is not the impact do so: (Bevan) This requires a threshold finding of: of the celebration of the marriage by itself, but the erosion which the The respondent’s capacity to pay duration of the marriage has upon the a. The applicant having a spousal maintenance is not assessed earning capacity which is referred to”] maintenance need (their reasonable merely on income, but also on property, needs and expenses exceed their financial resources and earning (n) the terms of any order made or income and earning capacity); and capacity and “an order may be made proposed to be made under section 79 b. The respondent having the notwithstanding that the liable spouse in relation to: capacity to pay (their income, earning could only satisfy the order out of (i) the property of the parties; capacity or resources exceed their capital or borrowings against capital (o) any fact or circumstance which, in reasonable needs and expenses) assets”: (Maroney [2009] FamCAFC 45). the opinion of the court, the justice HOPGOODGANIM LAWYERS 2 Part Company: Spousal Maintenance under the Australian Family Law Act of the case requires to be taken into (Harris (1978) FLC ¶90-454; Molier & determine any outstanding property account; and Van Wyk (1980) FLC ¶90-911. settlement (Clauson (1995) FLC ¶92- (p) the terms of any financial agreement 5. Lump sum orders (Vautin (1998) FLC 595; Figgins (2002) FLC ¶93-122) that is binding..” ¶92-827; Tyson v Tyson (1996) 70 ALJR and child support review (Massoud 285; (1996) HCATrans 55 where McHugh (2016) FLC ¶93-68) before making These factors affect the quantum of J pondered: “Why can one not say, maintenance orders. Maintenance a maintenance order. As Professor ‘Your present requirements are that was referred to as the fifth step in the Chisholm notes, many of the factors you need a lump sum now to pay off property settlement exercise. Sections listed express a policy or objective of these pressing debts which are due and 75(2)(n) and 90SF(3)(n) required the spousal maintenance law and “The immediately payable, but in terms of Court to take account of any property Act does not indicate the relative ordinary living you only need X dollars order. The clean break principles are importance of the various factors, a week’? Why does that not satisfy also supported by sections 44(3) and nor does it include any rule for section 72?”; Brown (2007) FLC ¶93-316 (5). The court also takes into account choosing between different policies in where the Full Court ordered a lump the parties’ property and resources in a particular case. ^ For this reason, sum maintenance payment of $2.25m. addition to their income and earning capacity. Whilst a party may have a spousal maintenance law might be 6. Discharge, suspension, revival need due to lack of income, the court characterised as “incoherent”.^” or variation of spousal maintenance may find they have sufficient property Notably for the purposes of this article, orders under Sections 83 and 90SI(1): which if properly invested could earn these factors import other approaches (Atkins & Hunt (2016) FLC ¶93-746, sufficient income to support them to maintenance beside the clean break there must be “in force an order”). and needs and capacity approaches without the need for maintenance and thereby decline to make an order; that have been predominantly the Australia is a party to a number approach of the Australian Courts and of international conventions and 3. There is an obligation on the practitioners. agreements regulating the recognition recipient of spousal maintenance and enforcement of maintenance to exercise that person’s capacity to The High Court has essentially followed obligations. [Agreement between earn an income and to mitigate their the long standing clean break and need the Government of Australia and the maintenance need (Taguchi (1987) FLC and capacity approaches of the Courts to Government of New Zealand on Child ¶91-836; Gyopar (1986) FLC ¶91-769); spousal maintenance in Australia. and Spousal Maintenance; The Hague 4. The maintenance component of a Convention on the Recognition and property settlement with regard to Parties to a marriage can seek Enforcement of Decisions Relating to sections 75(2) and 90SF(3) is not to be maintenance at any time during the Maintenance Obligations (see section 111A confused with spousal maintenance marriage (Eliades (1981) FLC ¶91-022) and of the Family Law Act); The Agreement (see Anast and Anastopoulos (1982) post separation until 12 months after a between the Government of Australia FLC ¶91-201).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Property and Financial Matters Upon the Breakdown of De Facto Relationships
    CFCA PAPER NO. 24 2014 Property and financial matters upon the breakdown of de facto relationships Rachel Carson Reforms introduced in 2009 to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) have meant that most same- sex and opposite-sex de facto couples (in all states and territories except Western Australia) who end their relationships can now have their property and financial matters dealt with in substantially the same way as married people. This paper aims to provide non-legal professionals in the family law sector with a general outline of the relevant reforms, their genesis, and the arguments in favour of and against their introduction. Please note: The content of this paper is intended only to provide general information in summary form. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Legal and other professional advice should be sought by you or your organisation. KEY MESSAGES The 2009 reforms to the Family Law Act (Cth) brought most Australian same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples within the federal family law system for the resolution of their property and financial matters upon separation. The reforms introduced a definition of de facto relationship and provided guidance to assist in determining whether a de facto relationship may be said to exist. The reforms enable access to property settlement and maintenance for most separated de facto couples in terms substantially the same as those available for married couples. The reforms enable most de facto couples to enter into Binding Financial Agreements, prior to commencing their relationship, during their relationship and upon separation.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Family Property Law: 'Just and Equitable' Outcomes?
    JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 85 SESS: 21 OUTPUT: Wed Aug 1 21:34:08 2018 /journals/journal/ajfl/vol32pt1/part_1 Australian family property law: ‘Just and equitable’ outcomes? Belinda Fehlberg and Lisa Sarmas* In this article we focus on the broad discretion under Australia’s Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to reallocate interests in property of spouses and separating de facto partners. We look at previous empirical research on the discretion’s operation and consider options for change. We identify that there is a lack of up-to-date empirical research data on the discretion’s operation, and that there is potential risk and possibly limited effect associated with legislative reform in this area. Yet the consistent empirical research finding that women, particularly mothers with dependent children, experience significant economic disadvantage post-separation leads us to see some merit in legislative reform that identifies the need to provide for the material and economic security of the parties and their dependent children as key factors to be considered when making property orders. I Introduction Our article examines the broad discretion under Australia’s Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘FLA’) to reallocate interests in property of spouses and, since 2009, separating de facto partners1 in the light of previous empirical research on the discretion’s operation. Although acknowledging the lack of up-to-date empirical research data on the discretion’s operation, and the potential risks and possibly limited effect of legislative reform, the consistent empirical research finding that women, particularly mothers with dependent2 children, experience significant economic disadvantage post-separation prompts us to formulate a proposal for legislative change that identifies the need to provide for the material and economic security of the parties and their dependent children as key factors to be considered when making property orders.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Law Issues and Schools: Guidance for Australian Educators
    FAMILY LAW ISSUES AND SCHOOLS: GUIDANCE FOR AUSTRALIAN EDUCATORS D o n n a Co o p e r 1 Qu e e n s l a n d Un i v e r s i t y o f Te c h n o l o g y , Br i s b a n e , Au s t r a l i a K y l i e Pe r k i n s & Ga r y Co u p e r * Co u p e r Ge y s e n , Br i s b a n e , Au s t r a l i a A substantial number o f Australian children are now living in separated families, with many moving between their parents’ homes. This has led to educators being confronted with an increasing number offamily law issues. This article discusses the key aspects offamily law that involve children. It highlights the need for schools to be aware o f all family law orders that relate to children in their care, including family court, domestic violence and child protection orders. It also provides guidance in relation to how schools can adopt child focused approaches in some common scenarios, where parents are in dispute. In particular, we will recommend that educators take a child-focused approach, consistent with the principal provision o f the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that ‘the best interests o f the child’ be the paramount consideration. We will highlight how this contrasts starkly with what can be described as a ‘parental rights’ interpretation, which has unfortunately been taken by some since the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act, and is, in our view, directly at odds with the intention o f the legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consequences of Extending Equitable Property Division Divorce Laws to Cohabitants
    DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 12102 The Consequences of Extending Equitable Property Division Divorce Laws to Cohabitants Abraham Chigavazira Hayley Fisher Tim Robinson Anna Zhu JANUARY 2019 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 12102 The Consequences of Extending Equitable Property Division Divorce Laws to Cohabitants Abraham Chigavazira Anna Zhu University of Melbourne, Melbourne Insti- University of Melbourne, Melbourne Insti- tute: Applied Economic and Social Research tute: Applied Economic and Social Re- search, Life Course Centre and IZA Hayley Fisher University of Sydney and IZA Tim Robinson University of Melbourne, Melbourne Insti- tute: Applied Economic and Social Research JANUARY 2019 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA DP No.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Use of the Concept of Parental Alienation in the Australian Family Law System: Contradictions, Collisions and Their Consequences
    Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law ISSN: 0964-9069 (Print) 1469-9621 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsf20 A history of the use of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family law system: contradictions, collisions and their consequences Zoe Rathus To cite this article: Zoe Rathus (2020) A history of the use of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family law system: contradictions, collisions and their consequences, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42:1, 5-17, DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2019.1701920 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1701920 Published online: 18 Feb 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 383 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsf20 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 2020, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 5–17 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1701920 ARTICLE A history of the use of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family law system: contradictions, collisions and their consequences Zoe Rathus Griffith Law School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This paper presents insights into the history and current deploy- Parental alienation; family ment of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family violence; child abuse; family law system. It begins in 1989, when an article on parental aliena- law tion syndrome was first published in an Australian law journal. It then traces aspects of the socio-legal and social science research, gender politics, law reform and jurisprudence of the following 30 years, paying attention to moments of significant change.
    [Show full text]
  • From “Form” to Function and Back Again: a Comparative Analysis of Form-Based and Function-Based Recognition of Adult Relationships in Law
    From “form” to function and back again: a comparative analysis of form-based and function-based recognition of adult relationships in law. Kathy Griffiths Cardiff School of Law and Politics Cardiff University Submitted for examination: May 2017 This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed …K Griffiths…………………………………………… (candidate) Date …10/08/2017…….…………….……… STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Signed …K Griffiths…………………………….…………… (candidate) Date …10/08/2017………………….…………… STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated, and the thesis has not been edited by a third party beyond what is permitted by Cardiff University’s Policy on the Use of Third Party Editors by Research Degree Students. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed …K Griffiths…………………………….……….…… (candidate) Date …10/08/2017………….………………… STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed …K Griffiths…………………………………………..…..….. (candidate) Date …10/08/2017…………………… STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Family Law System – Issues Paper 48
    Review of the Family Law System – Issues Paper 48 Australian Law Reform Commission 7 May 2018 Telephone +61 2 6246 3788 • Fax +61 2 6248 0639 Email [email protected] GPO Box 1989, Canberra ACT 2601, DX 5719 Canberra 19 Torrens St Braddon ACT 2612 Law Council of Australia Limited ABN 85 005 260 622 www.lawcouncil.asn.au Table of Contents About the Law Council of Australia ................................................................................6 Acknowledgement ...........................................................................................................7 Objectives and principles ................................................................................................8 Question 1: What should be the role and objectives of the modern family law system? ..........................................................................................................................8 How do people resolve their family law disputes? .......................................................9 The family courts ......................................................................................................10 Adversarial vs Inquisitorial court systems.................................................................. 11 Question 2: What principles should guide any redevelopment of the family law system? ........................................................................................................................15 Access and Engagement ...............................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Cohabitation Final Report
    LEGAL PRACTITIONERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE COHABITATION PROVISIONS OF THE FAMILY LAW (SCOTLAND) ACT 2006 October 2010 Fran Wasoff Jo Miles Enid Mordaunt Centre for Research on Trinity College Centre for Research on Families and Relationships University of Cambridge Families and Relationships The University of Edinburgh The University of Edinburgh crfr centre for research on families and relationships Project funded by the Nuffield Foundation The Nuffield Foundation is an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social well-being in the widest sense. It funds research and innovation in education and social policy and also works to build capacity in education, science and social science research. The Nuffield Foundation has funded this project, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. More information is available at www.nuffieldfoundation.org i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................iv Part 1. Background: setting the scene............................................................................ 1 Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. The Social Context of Cohabitation in Scotland................................ 4 Chapter 3. The Legal and Policy Context........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Services in Family Law
    LEGAL SERVICES IN FAMILY LAW Rosemary Hunter, with Ann Genovese, Angela Melville and April Chrzanowski December 2000 JUSTICE RESEARCH CENTRE ISBN 0 909136 74 2 © Law Foundation of New South Wales December 2000 Published by the Law Foundation of New South Wales on behalf of the Justice Research Centre Any opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Law Foundation’s Board of Governors, the Justice Research Centre’s Advisory Board, or the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department or Department of Finance. This publication is copyright. It may be reproduced in part or in whole for educational purposes as long as proper credit is given to the Justice Research Centre and its contributors. Participants Project manager Prof. Rosemary Hunter Research design, data collection and analysis April Chrzanowski Dr. Ann Genovese Shelley Hampton Angela Melville Natalina Nheu Prof. Ted Wright Research Assistants Cate Banks Jenny Beard Justin Beplate Carolyn Morris iv Steering Committee The Hon. Justice Sally Brown, Family Court of Australia Dr. Margaret Browne, First Assistant Secretary, Family Law and Legal Assistance Division, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department Mr. David Bulloch, Managing Solicitor, Parks Legal Service, South Australia Ms. Catherine Carney, Principal Solicitor, Women’s Legal Resources Centre, NSW Prof. Hilary Charlesworth, Director, Centre for International and Public Law, Faculty of Law, Australian National University Mr. Robert Cornall, (then) Managing Director, Victoria Legal Aid Mr. Mike Cramsie, (then) Director, Legal Aid Commission of NSW Mr. Chris Hayward, Commonwealth Department of Finance Ms. Annemaree Lanteri, Partner, Wisewoulds Solicitors Mr. Graham Russell, Manager, Family Law, Legal Services Commission of South Australia Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Families and the Law in Australia the Family Court Working Together with New and Emerging Communities
    Families and the law in Australia THE FAMILY COURT WORKING TOGETHER WITH NEW AND EMERGING COMMUNITIES FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship “The artwork featured in this publication was developed early in the partnership, the aim being to symbolise the development and strengthening of the partnership between the Family Court and new and emerging communities. The use of different colours and symbols sought to highlight the diversity of cultures, the different paths taken from different places of origin by communities and individuals on their journey to Australia and as people seek to settle successfully in Australia”. Families and the law in Australia – the Family Court working together with new and emerging communities 978-1-920866-05-1 © Family Court of Australia 2008 www.familycourt.gov.au This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from: n Chief Executive Officer, Family Court of Australia – GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601 Families and the law in Australia THE FAMILY COURT WORKING TOGETHER WITH NEW AND EMERGING COMMUNITIES FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship ii Families and the law in Australia THE FAMILY COURT WORKING TOGETHER WITH NEW AND EMERGING COMMUNITIES iii Contents Acknowledgments iv Foreword Family Court of Australia vi Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services viii National Cultural
    [Show full text]
  • The Family Law Handbook 5E Chapter 2 Marriage
    The Family Law Handbook Dr Maree Livermore FIFTH EDITION LAWBOOK CO. 2019 Prelims_Livermore.indd 3 19-Feb-19 3:26:53 PM Published in Sydney by Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited ABN 64 058 914 668 19 Harris Street, Pyrmont, NSW 2009 ISBN: 9780455242118 © 2019 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publishers. All legislative material herein is reproduced by permission but does not purport to be the official or authorised version. It is subject to Commonwealth of Australia copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits certain reproduction and publication of Commonwealth legislation. In particular, s 182A of the Act enables a complete copy to be made by or on behalf of a particular person. For reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Act, permission should be sought in writ- ing. Requests should be submitted online at www.ag.gov.au/cca, faxed to (02) 6250 5989 or mailed to Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600. Product Developer: Karen Knowles Edited and typeset by Newgen Digitalworks Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd, Riverwood, NSW This book has been printed on paper certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). PEFC is committed to sustainable forest management through third party forest certification of responsibly managed forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Families and the Continuing Justification for Rules Particular to the Regulation of Families
    EVOLVING FAMILIES AND THE CONTINUING JUSTIFICATION FOR RULES PARTICULAR TO THE REGULATION OF FAMILIES Family and Relationship Services Australia (FRSA) National Conference 2019 21 November 2019 The Hon Justice S C Derrington President – Australian Law Reform Commission 1. Let’s start at the very beginning. The statute that contains the rules particular to the regulation of families in this country is ‘An Act relating to Marriage and to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes and, in relation thereto and otherwise, Parental Responsibility for Children, and to financial matters arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships and to certain other Matters’ – the short title is the Family Law Act 1975. 2. The long title, however, tells us some very important things about the particular matters the Act seeks to regulate — marriage, divorce and matrimonial causes; parental responsibility for children whether within a marriage or otherwise, and financial matters arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships. 3. It will be recalled that the Act, which came into force on 5 January 1976, was premised on the need to reform the divorce law to ‘eliminate fault, simplify procedures and reduce costs.’1 It instituted two major changes to Australian divorce law: the introduction of no-fault divorce, (something which is yet to be legislated in the UK with its Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill failing to pass before prorogation) and the establishment of a specialist multi-discipline court for the resolution of family disputes. The Act was concerned solely with matters arising within the context of marriage for more than the first three decades of its existence (with the exception of conferring jurisdiction in relation to ex-nuptial children in the late eighties).
    [Show full text]