Julie Singleton

In most family law cases, it seems that one of the couple must be lying, as their versions of the history, course of the marriage and the reasons for the break up, seem poles apart. This appears to be the case not from not only my observations, but the study of a not yet released report, based on 5046 people, one fifth of the former couples reported a friendly or co-operative relationship while the other partner reported it was distant, conflicted or fearful.

What is the answer? What happens when the game is over and love is lost, does our memory go with it as well or is it just so colored by our current views that it even changes our memory of the past?

I’m also amazed at how couples at war in the Family Court do not see what effect that the turmoil of litigation has on their ability to be joyful human beings and mostly good parents. On one occasion a husband litigating in the Court with his Wife turned and said to me in court “Look how bitter and angry my ex looks? I bet she yelled at the kids this morning. My lawyer says that’s irrelevant what do you think?” I replied “Why wouldn’t she be upset? She is here in the Family Court and of course the stress of litigation will affect her ability to be joyful with the children. That is something parents need to think about when in litigation. What is this costing your children and perhaps your relationship with them?”

There are many costs that come with the end of a love relationship. The financial costs are just one of the costs. The biggest cost is the affect on your health, your relationship with your children and the other parent of your children. When you find your version of your relationship is so different to that of your ex that you must have been in different marriages, and then perhaps you need to look at perhaps that your memory has been clouded by emotion. Try and see it from the other person’s point of view, for the sake of the children and for yourself.

Relationships Australia has a great counseling service for parents and children. The Child Support Agency also offers courses and assistance to parents and children to help you through these trying times

The issue of whether couples should enter into pre-nups before they marry or live together is becoming a hot topic.  Lawyers are reporting all over the world that the pre-nup is becoming more and more popular.  Of course in almost every celebrity marriage we now expect there is one done.  Many Sydney law firms are reporting an almost tripling of demand for prenups, particularly for young professionals and those people who are marrying for the second or more time and have children/and or grandchildren from previous relationships they wish to protect.

What do I think about pre-nups?  Of course at first instance it doesn’t seem to be romantic; however it may not be as bad as it seems.  A girlfriend of mine who had been living with her partner for over 3 years recently decided to purchase a house with him.  It was then that the discussion of what would happen to each other’s share in the house if something happened to each of them.  Then he brought up the issue of a pre-nup and she called me quite distressed.  I said to her “Just listen to what he has to say.  You have kids.  He has kids.  Perhaps what he is proposing may be really sensible for both of you.”  Guess what?  It was, and if the relationship ends they both know exactly where they stand.

I think, and always have, that the best time to try and work out a problem is when you are not emotional.  Trying to resolve issues after a relationship breakdown is quite a challenge due to all the emotions involved, not only financially but in relation to children.  It may possibly be the best time to work out the solution when you are both in love and want to be fair and kind to each other than when you are at war.

I have been reading with concern that there are a number of DIY pre-nup kits for sale on the internet.  A Sydney company has reportedly been selling the kids for $90 amid a massive spike in demand for the binding marriage contracts.

I agree with the opinion of former Family Court judge Paul Guest that people should be warned to be careful with the DIY kits as they risk having the agreements overturned in the Family Court.  The former judge described them as a “recipe for disaster” in the newspaper this week. There are strict requirements for these contracts to be binding and one of them is that each party obtain independent legal advice.  Therefore you will need to consult a solicitor for the agreement to be binding and enforceable.

Julie Singleton

Solicitor

Level 26,

44 Market Street,

Sydney NSW 2000

Ph: 908 98783

The Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared parenting law passed in 2006, enraging men’s groups who say the laws finally gave them the access to their children after separation.

The changes sought to assist with parents who were in high conflict.  However, studies have now shown that the children whose parents were in high conflict have suffered most with the changes.  The increased contact forced on the parents and the children to each other has been more detrimental than helpful.

A change was flagged after the incident with Darcy Freeman when she was thrown over the bridge in Melbourne after her mother said in court at the committal hearing that she had been terrified of their former partner, and had told neighbours and others that he was certain to kill one of her children.

The submission also calls for the Family Court to consider the role a parent plays prior to separation.  This was a major consideration by the courts prior to the 2006 changes, the Court took into account as one of the most important factors the stability of the child’s life and how that would be affected by any orders made.  The 2006 changes, made clear by the decision of the case Goode and Goode in 2006 that the court must now not look to the established arrangements of the child (which may have meant the father had little or no role in the child’s life) but must follow the legislative pathway and make an assumption of equal shared care if there was no evidence of violence or abuse.  So for example in such cases where a father had left before a child was born and came back nine years later, after his mother had remarried and he only knew his step-father as his father (as in one real example placed before the Attorney General in this enquiry) the father was successful in obtaining an order the child have time with him each alternate weekend and half school holidays when he had no existing emotional bond with.

The other major problem with the new legislation was that it did not provide an age for the presumption of equal shared care to commence so when a breast feeding mother was ordered to stop breast feeding to enable a father to have the child over the weekends women’s groups were outraged.  The guidelines necessary such as the gradual increment of time with a parent for babies and very young children to be built up was not factored in an this was creating huge problems for women trying to hand over crying babies and toddlers to fathers who they had not spent substantial time with.

The issues and problems with ordering time with a parent who has been violent to a partner needs to be addressed.  The view that the court has held from time to time that just because a partner is violent to an adult does not mean they will be violent to their children I believe is unrealistic on two counts.  Firstly if you are capable of violence towards your spouse surely you have evidence of not being able to control your anger and this will flow into your behaviour when tested by the patience needed for caring for children.  Secondly once victim violence how is a mother or father suppose to be convinced that the partner will not be violent to their children as in the Darcey Freeman case.

Changes are needed to the Parenting Laws to benefit mums, dads and especially all the children involved.  There were many issues that were not given proper attention and hopefully they will now be addressed.

They often say that lawyers are the ones to win out of any divorce.  But what if the two parties agree that they don’t want to go to court, while still using a lawyer each?

Can this be done?  Yes, it’s called Collaborative Law.

Each party is represented by their respective collaboratively trained lawyer throughout the process.

Both lawyers help their client and the other party to work as a team to:

-find and focus on their common interests;

-understand each other’s concerns;

-make a full and frank exchange of information;

-explore a wide range of possible choices; and

-reach solutions acceptable to both parties

Both lawyers and their clients sign a contract at the start of the process which provides that all four parties to the contract will not go to Court and will not use threats of going to Court to solve the dispute.  If one party then commences an action in Court neither lawyer can act for the respective parties and the parties will need to retain new lawyers.

If you wish to obtain more information about Collaborative Law or find a Collaborative Lawyer you will find information and details of Lawyers in your area at www.collaborativelaw.asn.au

We must all admit that we could no longer live without the internet, but is it causing chaos to the family unit?  Is the availability of romance online, causing relationship break-ups then causing problems with the relocation of the parents, wanting to be with their new lovers?

An explosion in online romances is making it the toughest Family Court issue, even tougher, with more separated parents than ever finding love and wanting to move their children interstate or overseas to be with a new partner.

As reported in the Sun-Herald yesterday. A world-first study of 80 parents involved in relocation disputes, shows that online dating is having a devastating impact on already-broken homes, put an average distance of 1646 kilometres between children and the parent left behind.

When chatting to Doctor John Irvine last night on radio 2UE about this very subject, Dr Irvine indicated it was one of the hardest areas to be drawn into.  He stated that the children were caught in the middle of a parent wanting to be with a new lover, when the chances of the new relationship not working out was even higher than that of first marriages.  The parent with the new love interest wants to be with their new partner and the other partner does not necessarily want to stop the other parent being happy, but at the same time does not want to lose the ability to live close to their children.

Just last week the High Court the case of Rosa V Rosa, in which a mother had been ordered to stay living in a caravan park in Queensland and not allowed to move back to Sydney (the mother had moved their when the father obtained a job in the area mining and then the parties separated), even though she was depressed and on welfare parents.  The Family Court had decided it was in the best interests of the child to stay in the area close to her father’s mining career.  The High Court decided that the decision of the Family Court was wrong and ordered a fresh hearing.

The legal costs for such applications can be crippling and statistics show that they are more expensive than any other area of family law and have the least likelihood of settling out of court with 59% of the cases having to be determined by a judge which is four times the general rate.

Former Family Court Judge Richard Chisholm has reported that Relocation disputes are the most difficult decisions judges must make.

What is your view on this?  Do you think partners should be allowed to move interstate or overseas with the children to be with new partners and if so why?