Family LCMD thread (2 Viewers)

[Mc_Meaney]

I actually did Family as my first topic of Legal Studies HSC Course in term 4 last year.

 

[Huratio]

I actually did Family as my first topic of Legal Studies HSC Course in term 4 last year.

Newberry means people that completed their HSC in 2005, thats why all the posters above aren't posting alot in the legal forum anymore.

 

[rnitya_25]

Family law Reform Act 1995 before the one above.

 

[vanleeuwen]

*Attorney-General for the Cth v “Kevin and Jennifer” (21 Feb 2003 – date of judgement (appeal))
-transsexual marriage is valid
* Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee 1866 – created legal definition of marriage (i.e. marriage as an institution/legal contract)
* Corbett v Corbett 1971 – transsexual marriage not valid under Australian law

• In the marriage of Schmidt 1976 – couple wed in 1960 (husband’s 2nd marriage, still legally wed to his 1st wife – did not inform 2nd wife), 1969 2nd marriage ended but 1st marriage only broke down in 1964 – i.e. 2nd marriage invalid
• Rowan and Rowan 1977 – wife applied for maintenance order from husband but Family Court found under Family Law Act 1975 NSW she had no right due to being able to adequately support herself
• Dpt of Health and Community Services v JMB and SMB 1992 – couple tried to have intellectually disabled daughter sterilised , Dpt believed it a violation of her human rights, High Court decided it not fit within the ordinary scope of parental rights and was not in her best interests
• In the marriage of A 1981 – parents refused their son into the house due to an argument; he applied to have legal custody given to his uncle. Granted, as parents did not act in the interests of the child
• R v McEwen – successfully used battered woman’s syndrome as a defence for killing partner -> court recognised that same-sex couples could use this as a defence to murder
• W v G 1994 – judge ordered lesbian woman to pay child support for partner’s children, conceived through artificial insemination
• Hope and Brown v NIB Health Fund LTD 1994 – recognised the rights of gay people to family insurance. Successfully claimed discrimination for being denied access at NIB.
• Hohol v Hohol 1981 – woman living in de facto relationship demanded half the property after relationship broke up. Court ruled that she be granted the same rights as a married woman due to a common intention that both parties had some claim to the property
• In the marriage of Hannema 1981 – wife sought a property settlement from husband after separation after both signing a pre-nuptial agreement in Indonesia stating both parties would have property acquired by them remain their own. Courts decreed that they could not ignore section 79 of Family Law Act 1975 Cth
• Re Evelyn 1998 – surrogate birth mother wanted child back after suffering from post natal depression, court ruled it was to remain with the other family, the surrogate mother appealed and it was decided that due to the child’s interests being paramount she was to remain with the surrogate mother
• In the marriage of O’Dea 1980 – wife sought an order giving her sole use of matrimonial home and an injunction preventing husband from abusing her and providing maintenance. Everything was granted except order for support due to the husband having no income
• Whiteoak and Whiteoak 1980 (dissolution of marriage) – 12 month separation, husband imprisoned in November 1978, wife told him marriage was over in March 1979. In November 1978, wife applied to legal dissolution of marriage (based on 12 month separation) but court decided that the divorce would be granted in March i.e. not legally over till then
• [FONT=&quot]In the marriage of Kemp 1976 –[FONT=&quot] after separation of a couple, court ruled the home should be sold and proceeds split 50/50, wife appealed stating that proceeds would not be enough to purchase a home. Judge ordered she be allowed to stay in the home as she had custody of the children, until they are 14 when she will have the option of buying the house[/FONT][/FONT]
• Campbell and Campbell 1988 – during marriage, children lived an extravagant lifestyle. After separation, mother applied for $100 per week per child, father offered half of that claiming he never approved of such a lifestyle and should not be forced to pay for it. Father was ordered to pay $100 per week per child plus expenses, even though the judges disapproved of the mother’s insistence on such a lifestyle, the interests of the children must be taken into account.

hope this helps anyone who needed some case studies.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Alissia]

does anyone know what a good case would be where DoCS have been involved in taking a family to the Children's Court?

 

[mzlaila]

hey guys, i dont know how to make a new post thingo so im just replying here lol. um was wondering if any of you know good sites etc to help me with writing an inclass essay about.. the changes made in 2006 to the family law act 1975. i need the key changes etc.. much appreciated

 

[amina121]

hey guys, i dont know how to make a new post thingo so im just replying here lol. um was wondering if any of you know good sites etc to help me with writing an inclass essay about.. the changes made in 2006 to the family law act 1975. i need the key changes etc.. much appreciated

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Families_FamilyLawAmendment(SharedResponsibility)Act2006

 

[EvoIX]

Prenuptial rights for same-sex, unmarried

Date: October 19 2008
SMH
Caroline Marcus

UNMARRIED and same sex-couples may soon be able to sign "prenups", giving de factos many of the same legal rights as those who are wed.
Reforms to the Family Law Act before the Senate would allow agreements to be drawn up by de factos to cover spousal and child maintenance, as well as the division of property in the event of a relationship breakup.
The principal of Nicholes Family Lawyers, Sally Nicholes, said the proposed financial agreements were similar to official binding financial agreements or prenuptials as they are widely known.
The bill was circulated in Federal Parliament on September 18 and is awaiting consideration by the Senate. If the legislation is passed, it is expected to be enacted by March.
A de facto relationship can be heterosexual or homosexual and can exist even if one of the people involved is legally married to someone else or has another de facto partner.
The legislation will also mean that a court can force a partner out of the home if they are violent or acting inappropriately to the other person.
"This is pretty dramatic stuff and it is a big change," Ms Nicholes said. "It is going to be huge, particularly with the spousal maintenance.
"What I have often found amazing is that someone could be in a de facto relationship for 30 years and have no obligation for spousal maintenance. But you could be married for one year and have more rights."
She agreed that the amendments may make marriage a less attractive prospect for some couples.
"It just depends on how legally minded a couple are," she said. "[But] some will come back to romance - to actually get married not for legal reasons, but romance."
Ms Nicholes said financial agreements were already common in second marriages or in the case of de facto relationships where people had been married before and were "burnt" by the divorce.
Agreements may also be necessary in cases where clients expected large inheritances or to avoid family conflict when one partner comes from greater wealth.
Prenups have been in force in Australia since December 2000, although public perception has changed greatly since then, Ms Nicholes said.
"Prior to the introduction of the laws in 2001, public perception did attribute prenups to American legal shows in the realm of Arena Becker from LA Law," she said.
"The profession has seen a request from average Joes who simply want to control their affairs and determine their destiny rather than [allow] a court [to].
"They may have seen friends or relatives at the end of a harrowing divorce litigation and knowing such agreements are in force, chose to enter into them to control their affairs in the event of a relationship breakdown."
Under the legislation, courts will determine whether a couple are involved in a de facto relationship by taking a number of factors into account, including the duration of the partnership, whether they are living together, whether a sexual relationship exists, the degree of financial dependence and the ownership of property.

 

[CoooNooo]

Does anyone have notes for the case, "Rosa & Rosa 2009"??