DOCSLIB.ORG

From “Form” to Function and Back Again: a Comparative Analysis of Form-Based and Function-Based Recognition of Adult Relationships in Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Signed …K Griffiths…………………………………………..……… (candidate) Date …10/08/2017…………….……… 2 Thesis summary This thesis explores the desirability and viability of a function-based as opposed to a form-based approach to adult relationship recognition in law. It explores the benefits and difficulties with both form-based and function-based approaches to determine whether either has any significant advantage over the other, both in relation to a need to provide a system of relationship recognition that is inclusive of the diversity of family relationships formed today, and in relation to the protective and symbolic functions of family law. To do this, the thesis will compare the English and Welsh approach to relationship recognition with that adopted in Australia. The thesis will show that form- and function-based approaches share many of the same benefits and both can be flexible because they can be used in ways that are inclusive of a variety of relationship types and both approaches have their disadvantages. On balance, function-based systems appear more principled than form-based systems because they focus on the quality of the relationship and not merely on its structure and function-based systems are better placed to protect the vulnerable partner in a relationship because there is no need to opt-in for legal recognition. But, form-based systems should not be abandoned because they have the benefit of being administratively efficient, and are better placed to serve family law’s symbolic function. Both form- and function-based approaches have the potential to be used in radical ways to respond to the needs of real families, but social reality and political will limits the development of both approaches to relationship recognition. 3 Acknowledgments I have to start by thanking the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol, especially Dr Dylan Phillips, for funding the research project and supporting me throughout my time as a postgraduate student at Cardiff University. This thesis would not have been possible without the Coleg, and Dylan’s unwavering support. Diolch yn fawr am fy mherswadio i ail-gychwyn, Dylan! I’d like to thank my fellow PhD candidates, especially my fellow troglodytes (Chen, Alison, Steffan, Derek, Katie and Alan), for the support (counselling?!) and laughter throughout my time at 69 Park Place. I’d also like to thank my parents, for helping me pay the rent and ensuring I didn’t starve when things got tough. And thanks goes especially to Kris, for putting up with me over the past few months. I owe you a bottle of Dom (or 3). Most of all, I’d like to thank my supervisors, Dr Leanne Smith and Professor Gillian Douglas, for their invaluable support, encouragement, inspiration and never-ending patience throughout this process. Without your insight, feedback and generosity I’m not sure that I’d ever have submitted. 4 Table of Contents Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Table of cases ........................................................................................................................................ 13 England and Wales ............................................................................................................................ 13 Australia ............................................................................................................................................ 15 European Court of Human Rights ..................................................................................................... 18 Table of legislation ................................................................................................................................ 19 England and Wales ............................................................................................................................ 19 Australia ............................................................................................................................................ 20 A note on terminology .......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 1 ................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 2 ................................................................................................................................... 24 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Aims of the thesis .............................................................................................................................. 28 Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 1 – Changing relationship practices ........................................................................................ 32 1.1 The changing demographic picture ................................................................................................ 32 1.1.1 Formalised relationships .......................................................................................................... 32 1.1.1.1 Marriage and divorce ........................................................................................................ 32 1.1.1.2 Civil partnerships, the Australian registered relationships and dissolution ..................... 35 1.1.2 Informal relationships .............................................................................................................. 36 1.1.2.1 Cohabitants ....................................................................................................................... 36 1.1.2.2 Other living arrangements ................................................................................................ 38 1.1.2.2a LATs: Living-Apart-Together ........................................................................................ 39 1.2 Changing social attitudes ................................................................................................................ 41 1.2.1 Views on marriage and cohabitation ....................................................................................... 41 1.2.2 Attitudes towards other relationships ..................................................................................... 43 5 1.3 The meaning and significance of ‘family’ ........................................................................................ 44 1.3.1 The changing nature of personal relationships ....................................................................... 44 1.3.2 The concept of ‘family’............................................................................................................. 47 1.3.2.1 The family we live by ......................................................................................................... 48 1.3.2.1a The traditional family .................................................................................................. 48 1.3.2.1b The modern family ...................................................................................................... 49 1.3.2.2 The family we live with ..................................................................................................... 50 1.3.2.2a Thinking of family in a fluid way: the family practices approach ................................ 50 1.3.2.2b Defining family by its functions? ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "No-Fault Divorce"
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 01409, 9 April 2019 By Catherine Fairbairn "No-fault divorce" Contents: 1. The current basis for divorce in England and Wales 2. Owens v Owens: consideration of “behaviour” fact 3. Family Law Act 1996 Part 2 4. Calls for the introduction of no-fault divorce 5. Arguments against the introduction of no-fault divorce 6. Government consultation 7. Divorce in Scotland www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Contents Summary 3 1. The current basis for divorce in England and Wales 5 1.1 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 5 1.2 Fault based petitions 6 1.3 Divorce process 7 2. Owens v Owens: consideration of “behaviour” fact 9 2.1 Family Court: no divorce 9 2.2 Court of Appeal: appeal dismissed 9 2.3 Supreme Court: further appeal dismissed 10 3. Family Law Act 1996 Part 2 12 3.1 Law Commission recommendations 12 3.2 Provision for “no-fault divorce” 12 3.3 Pilot schemes 13 3.4 Repeal of Family Law Act 1996 Part 2 14 4. Calls for the introduction of no-fault divorce 15 4.1 Calls for no-fault divorce by senior members of the Judiciary 15 4.2 Research study 16 4.3 Lords Private Member’s Bill 17 4.4 Previous Commons Private Member’s Bill 18 4.5 Labour Party Manifesto 2017 18 4.6 “Family Matters” campaign in The Times 18 4.7 Resolution campaign 19 4.8 Report of the Family Mediation Task Force 20 5. Arguments against the introduction of no-fault divorce 21 5.1 Private Member’s Bill debate 21 5.2 Coalition for Marriage 22 5.3 Baroness Deech: reform financial provision law 22 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeal Judgment Template
    Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Civ 190 Case No: B4/2019/2369 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM BIRMINGHAM CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE THE ORDER OF HHJ TUCKER BM15F00007 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 21/02/2020 Before : THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON and LORD JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Deirdre Fottrell QC, Seema Kansal and Marlene Cayoun (instructed by National Legal Service Solicitors) for the Appellant Jason Beer QC and Alice Meredith (instructed by Staffordshire and West Midlands Police Joint Legal Department) for the Respondent Sarah Hannett (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the First Intervener the Secretary of State for Justice Henry Setright QC and Jacqueline Renton (instructed by Southall Black Sisters) for the Second Intervener Hearing date : 27th November 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) Sir Andrew McFarlane P : 1. In this appeal the court is required to consider the jurisdiction of the Family Court in respect of two issues related to Forced Marriage Protection Orders [‘FMPO’] made under Family Law Act 1996, s 63A. The first relates to the court’s jurisdiction where the subject of the order is an adult who does not lack mental capacity. The second relates to Passport Orders as part of a FMPO, and, in particular, whether there is jurisdiction to make an open-ended or indefinite Passport Order in that context. 2. The factual background to the application can be stated shortly.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Chapter [No.]: [Chapter Title]
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Doing Time - Time for Doing Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs June 2011 Canberra © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 ISBN 978-0-642-79266-2 (Printed version) ISBN 978-0-642-79267-9 (HTML version) Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. ix Membership of the Committee ............................................................................................................ xi Terms of reference ............................................................................................................................ xiii List of acronyms ................................................................................................................................. xv List of recommendations ................................................................................................................... xix 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Conduct of the inquiry .............................................................................................................. 2 Structure of the report .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Indigenous youth and the criminal justice system: an overview ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Operation-Belcarra-Report-2017.Pdf
    October 2017 Operation Belcarra A blueprint for integrity and addressing corruption risk in local government October 2017 Operation Belcarra A blueprint for integrity and addressing corruption risk in local government © The State of Queensland (Crime and Corruption Commission) (CCC) 2017 You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland, Crime and Corruption Commission as the source of the publication. The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (BY) 4.0 Australia licence. To view this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek permission from the CCC, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. For permissions beyond the scope of this licence contact: [email protected] Disclaimer of Liability While every effort is made to ensure that accurate information is disseminated through this medium, the Crime and Corruption Commission makes no representation about the content and suitability of this information for any purpose. The information provided is only intended to increase awareness and provide general information on the topic. It does not constitute legal advice. The Crime and Corruption Commission does not accept responsibility for any actions undertaken based on the information contained herein. ISBN 978-1-876986-85-8 Crime and Corruption Commission GPO Box 3123, Brisbane QLD 4001 Phone: 07 3360 6060 (toll-free outside Brisbane: 1800 061 611) Level 2, North Tower Green Square Fax: 07 3360 6333 515 St Pauls Terrace Email: [email protected] Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 Note: This publication is accessible through the CCC website <www.ccc.qld.gov.au>.
    [Show full text]
  • Blair (ALP 8.0%)
    Blair (ALP 8.0%) Location South east Queensland. Blair includes the towns of Ipswich, Rosewood, Esk, Kilcoy and surrounding rural areas. Redistribution Gains Karana Downs from Ryan, reducing the margin from 8.9% to 8% History Blair was created in 1998. Its first member was Liberal Cameron Thompson, who was a backbencher for his entire parliamentary career. Thompson was defeated in 2007 by Shayne Neumann. History Shayne Neumann- ALP: Before entering parliament, Neumann was a lawyer. He was a parliamentary secretary in the Gillard Government and is currently Shadow Minister for Immigration. Robert Shearman- LNP: Michelle Duncan- Greens: Sharon Bell- One Nation: Bell is an estimating assistant in the construction industry. Majella Zimpel- UAP: Zimpel works in social services. Simone Karandrews- Independent: Karandrews is a health professional who worked at Ipswich Hospital. John Turner- Independent: Peter Fitzpatrick- Conservative National (Anning): John Quinn- Labour DLP: Electoral Geography Labor performs best in and around Ipswich while the LNP does better in the small rural booths. Labor’s vote ranged from 39.37% at Mount Kilcoy State School to 76.25% at Riverview state school near Ipswich. Prognosis Labor should hold on to Blair quite easily. Bonner (LNP 3.4%) Location Eastern suburbs of Brisbane. Bonner includes the suburbs of Mount Gravatt, Mansfield, Carindale, Wynnum, and Manly. Bonner also includes Moreton Island. Redistribution Unchanged History Bonner was created in 2004 and has always been a marginal seat. Its first member was Liberal Ross Vasta, who held it for one term before being defeated by Labor’s Kerry Rea. Rea only held Bonner for one term before being defeated by Vasta, running for the LNP.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 VIEW from the PRESIDENT's CHAMBERS (11) the Process of Reform: on the Cusp of History Sir James Munby, P
    VIEW FROM THE PRESIDENT’S CHAMBERS (11) The process of reform: on the cusp of history Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division We stand on the cusp of history. 22 April 2014 marks the largest reform of the family justice system any of us have seen or will see in our professional lifetimes. On 22 April 2014 almost all the relevant provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the Children and Families Act 2014 come into force. On 22 April 2014 the Family Court comes into existence and the Family Proceedings Court passes into history. On 22 April 2014 we see the implementation of the final version of the revised PLO in public law cases (PLO 2014) and the implementation in private law cases of the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP 2014). Taken as a whole, these reforms amount to a revolution. Central to this revolution has been – has had to be – a fundamental change in the cultures of the family courts. This is truly a cultural revolution. There are many whose contribution to this revolution needs to be recognised and marked. Pride of place must go to David Norgrove, the mastermind of the Family Justice Review. Only those who have worked closely with him will know just how inspired and inspirational his work has been – and continues to be. His achievement has been colossal. It is little over four years ago that the Family Justice Review was set up. In that short time it has reported, it has seen its recommendations accepted first by Government and then by Parliament and then implemented under the collaborative leadership of the judiciary and the Family Justice Board, also chaired by Norgrove.
    [Show full text]
  • President of the Family Division Speech
    SIR NICHOLAS WALL, PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION ANNUAL RESOLUTION CONFERENCE THE QUEENS HOTEL, LEEDS 24 MARCH 2012 1. May I begin, not only by thanking you for inviting me to give this keynote address, but also by emphasising the importance of an organisation such as Resolution both to family Law in general and to the judiciary in particular. I fully appreciate, of course and as your name suggests, that you are committed to the non-adversarial resolution of family disputes and it is an unfortunate fact, I think, that the Family Justice System has been grafted on to the adversarial common law structure, Thus, however inquisitorial we try to be, there are some issues of fact, particularly in public law, which have to be decided adversarially. The threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is an obvious example, as is the fact of non-accidental injury to a child, which the parents deny. We have not found a different way of dealing with such issues, and the law relating to disclosure of documents to the police militates against frank admissions of responsibility for actions which may, in some cases, be both untypical and momentary 2. Nonetheless. I am acutely aware of the damage which ongoing adversarial litigation can do – particularly to children – and it is therefore very useful for me, as a judge, who has spent much of his working life in the adversarial system, to come to a conference such as this, which advocates a different approach. I am only sorry that I could not be with you yesterday in order to attend your workshops.
    [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]
  • Transparency in the Family Court: What Goes on Behind Closed Doors?
    24 May 2018 Transparency in the Family Court: What Goes on Behind Closed Doors? PROFESSOR JO DELAHUNTY QC Questions: • Who does the child’s story belong to in the family court? The child, the family or society? • What do the public know about the way family courts make their decisions? • Where and how do we draw the line between confidentiality and press access to the litigation and publication about it? • Is the balance right? • If it is: how do we explain the howls of outrage about “secret courts’ and injustice’ that bleed into public consciousness through social media and some press headlines? • Does the Family Justice System risk falling into disrespect if it does not constructively engage with the public and press? • What next? A History Lesson I have practiced as a barrister for 32 years and been a child protection specialist for about 25 of them. That means I inherited a way of working that operated without mobiles, e-mail, twitter, Facebook etc. Social media (a term not in use) was more likely to mean picking up a scruffy paper in a pub over a pint than the mass explosion of information and views on matters great and small via the world-wide web that we have now. If they got caught up in a child protection case, a parent’s knowledge about what might happen in court as they walked through its doors for the first time would come from the lawyers who worked in the system or anecdote if family or friends had trod the same path before.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • ACA Qld 2019 National Conference
    ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ • • • • • • • • • • • • • Equal Remuneration Order (and Work Value Case) • 4 yearly review of Modern Awards • Family friendly working conditions (ACA Qld significant involvement) • Casual clauses added to Modern Awards • Minimum wage increase – 3.5% • Employment walk offs, strikes • ACA is pursuing two substantive claims, • To provide employers with greater flexibility to change rosters other than with 7 days notice. • To allow ordinary hours to be worked before 6.00am or after 6.30pm. • • • • • Electorate Sitting Member Opposition Capricornia Michelle Landry [email protected] Russell Robertson Russell.Robertson@quee nslandlabor.org Forde Bert Van Manen [email protected] Des Hardman Des.Hardman@queenslan dlabor.org Petrie Luke Howarth [email protected] Corinne Mulholland Corinne.Mulholland@que enslandlabor.org Dickson Peter Dutton [email protected] Ali France Ali.France@queenslandla bor.org Dawson George Christensen [email protected] Belinda Hassan Belinda.Hassan@queensl .au andlabor.org Bonner Ross Vasta [email protected] Jo Briskey Jo.Briskey@queenslandla bor.org Leichhardt Warren Entsch [email protected] Elida Faith Elida.Faith@queenslandla bor.org Brisbane Trevor Evans [email protected] Paul Newbury paul.newbury@queenslan dlabor.org Bowman Andrew Laming [email protected] Tom Baster tom.Baster@queenslandla bor.org Wide Bay Llew O’Brien [email protected] Ryan Jane Prentice [email protected] Peter Cossar peter.cossar@queensland
    [Show full text]