How many issues should I write about in my consumer and family essays? (1 Viewer)

[Lachyy]

Right now I am writing about only writing down 2 arguments which gets me around a band 6 when I go and get them marked. But after reading some past HSC responses I see band 6 responses write around 5 arguments with less analysis. Would this be a better way to go or should I stick with 2 arguments. Note that I write around 1000-1200 words with my current structure which seems to be the average.

Thanks for the help and advice.

 

[Spiritual Being]

Basically,

Learn the contemporary issues for both. When you're giving your argument, be very concise but sophisticated, and leave yourself an adequate amount of writing room to talk about 4-5 arguments.

The markers LOVE contemporary articles etc

Go online and search for issues currently debated in parliament, and how they are trying to balance rights of victim, offender and society

etc

 

[Candidate]

Remember historic cases. Markers also love it when you use both historic cases and contemporary cases (at least they do in world order).

 

[Spiritual Being]

Remember historic cases. Markers also love it when you use both historic cases and contemporary cases (at least they do in world order).

What if I do consumer when nothing is historic.

Oh no wait,

Preist v. Last (1902), the court ruled that a hot water bottle should not burst after five days of use.

WOO

 

[Lachyy]

Thanks for that guys, I'm a bit worried I won't be able to learn a new writing method by tomorrow, would any of you care to read a paragraph of mine?

Q. Assess whether changes to family law are an improvement on previous law.

Paragraph 2 : Moving on, any area where the law has made many changes is the area of the changing nature of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to children.
Owing to society’s changing values and the increasing levels of divorce today, the law has changed many times to ensure it is updated and relevant, however may not always achieve expected degrees of improvement. One of the most recent changes is the shift from a system of parental rights to parental responsibility for a child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) made it very clear to parents that all parental responsibility is joint under S61B and S61C and the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” except in cases such as domestic violence under S61F(1). When two parents divorce, there still however exists confusion, with many parents believing “equal shared parental responsibility” means that they should receive “equal time” to spend with the child. This is however not the case, with the courts making parenting orders based on the child’s best interests, meaning sometimes, one parent may spend “substantial and significant time” with one parents if perceived to be more beneficial for the child under this new changes. These decisions can often lead to the parent who is ordered less contact with the child to refuse payment of child support as required under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Scheme 1988 (NSW). This is especially since changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Scheme Act 1989 (NSW) in 2008 took into account whether a parent has regular overnight care of the child in determining how much a parent was to pay. This was seen in the case of Tellam V Meriami 2012 where a father had not paid child support due to receiving minimal contact with the child, causing the plaintiff to suffer financial instability and fail her duty of parental responsibility to her child. Reinforcing this is the newspaper article “$22m in child support debt, published by news.com.au on 16/10/13” which outlines that a large $1.1million worth of child support has not been paid, with NSW leading this debt, contributing $324 million worth of unpaid child support. Both these examples outline the inadequate improvements these changes under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) to parental contact have made. Many parents choose not to comply, believing it is wrong and against their values to pay for a child they have minimal contact with, as well as the law lacking high degrees of enforceability in forcing parents to pay this compulsory child support. Consequently, the law’s improvements in this area have been problematic in enforcing the duty and responsibility parents have in relation to their children.

 

[Lachyy]

Also I lack good english skills, so if anyone could recommend another sentence connector instead of, this, this, this, it would be appreciated.

 

[Spiritual Being]

Also I lack good english skills, so if anyone could recommend another sentence connector instead of, this, this, this, it would be appreciated.

Try not to have any floating sentences which substantiate nothing. Just shorten them and combine together with your legislation, cases etc...

 

[Candidate]

What if I do consumer when nothing is historic.

Oh no wait,

Preist v. Last (1902), the court ruled that a hot water bottle should not burst after five days of use.

WOO

Haha there should be heaps in family though, like the parens patriae cases

 

[Candidate]

Thanks for that guys, I'm a bit worried I won't be able to learn a new writing method by tomorrow, would any of you care to read a paragraph of mine?

Q. Assess whether changes to family law are an improvement on previous law.

Paragraph 2 : Moving on, any area where the law has made many changes is the area of the changing nature of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to children.
Owing to society’s changing values and the increasing levels of divorce today, the law has changed many times to ensure it is updated and relevant, however may not always achieve expected degrees of improvement. One of the most recent changes is the shift from a system of parental rights to parental responsibility for a child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) made it very clear to parents that all parental responsibility is joint under S61B and S61C and the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” except in cases such as domestic violence under S61F(1). When two parents divorce, there still however exists confusion, with many parents believing “equal shared parental responsibility” means that they should receive “equal time” to spend with the child. This is however not the case, with the courts making parenting orders based on the child’s best interests, meaning sometimes, one parent may spend “substantial and significant time” with one parents if perceived to be more beneficial for the child under this new changes. These decisions can often lead to the parent who is ordered less contact with the child to refuse payment of child support as required under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Scheme 1988 (NSW). This is especially since changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Scheme Act 1989 (NSW) in 2008 took into account whether a parent has regular overnight care of the child in determining how much a parent was to pay. This was seen in the case of Tellam V Meriami 2012 where a father had not paid child support due to receiving minimal contact with the child, causing the plaintiff to suffer financial instability and fail her duty of parental responsibility to her child. Reinforcing this is the newspaper article “$22m in child support debt, published by news.com.au on 16/10/13” which outlines that a large $1.1million worth of child support has not been paid, with NSW leading this debt, contributing $324 million worth of unpaid child support. Both these examples outline the inadequate improvements these changes under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) to parental contact have made. Many parents choose not to comply, believing it is wrong and against their values to pay for a child they have minimal contact with, as well as the law lacking high degrees of enforceability in forcing parents to pay this compulsory child support. Consequently, the law’s improvements in this area have been problematic in enforcing the duty and responsibility parents have in relation to their children.

Try and get this paragraph down to at least ~230 words or divide it in two (maybe the info about child support could relate back to the care & protection of children while the parental responsibility can focus on the changing nature of parental responsibility point?)

 

[Spiritual Being]

Thanks for that guys, I'm a bit worried I won't be able to learn a new writing method by tomorrow, would any of you care to read a paragraph of mine?

Q. Assess whether changes to family law are an improvement on previous law.

Paragraph 2 : Moving on, any area where the law has made many changes is the area of the changing nature of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to children.
Owing to society’s changing values and the increasing levels of divorce today, the law has changed many times to ensure it is updated and relevant, however may not always achieve expected degrees of improvement. One of the most recent changes is the shift from a system of parental rights to parental responsibility for a child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) made it very clear to parents that all parental responsibility is joint under S61B and S61C and the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” except in cases such as domestic violence under S61F(1). When two parents divorce, there still however exists confusion, with many parents believing “equal shared parental responsibility” means that they should receive “equal time” to spend with the child. This is however not the case, with the courts making parenting orders based on the child’s best interests, meaning sometimes, one parent may spend “substantial and significant time” with one parents if perceived to be more beneficial for the child under this new changes. These decisions can often lead to the parent who is ordered less contact with the child to refuse payment of child support as required under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Scheme 1988 (NSW). This is especially since changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Scheme Act 1989 (NSW) in 2008 took into account whether a parent has regular overnight care of the child in determining how much a parent was to pay. This was seen in the case of Tellam V Meriami 2012 where a father had not paid child support due to receiving minimal contact with the child, causing the plaintiff to suffer financial instability and fail her duty of parental responsibility to her child. Reinforcing this is the newspaper article “$22m in child support debt, published by news.com.au on 16/10/13” which outlines that a large $1.1million worth of child support has not been paid, with NSW leading this debt, contributing $324 million worth of unpaid child support. Both these examples outline the inadequate improvements these changes under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) to parental contact have made. Many parents choose not to comply, believing it is wrong and against their values to pay for a child they have minimal contact with, as well as the law lacking high degrees of enforceability in forcing parents to pay this compulsory child support. Consequently, the law’s improvements in this area have been problematic in enforcing the duty and responsibility parents have in relation to their children.

While your analysis is good, your issue is the length of the paragraph.

We're not going to get a question solely on parental responsibility, It's going to appropriately fall under relationship breakdowns where divorce, domestic violence etc can also be included.

So your topic sentence has to interact with the question, and you have to use cases/legislation/articles as your foundation, not use theory and back it up with legal tools.

Ensure the integration of the criteria throughout.

 

[Lachyy]

Sorry, I didn't quite get the theory part of your sentence, could you point out where I made that mistake?

And for the topic sentence bit, wouldn't it be alright to use the changing nature of parental responsibility as one argument? and talk about domestic violence and divorce in another paragraph?

 

[Spiritual Being]

Sorry, I didn't quite get the theory part of your sentence, could you point out where I made that mistake?

And for the topic sentence bit, wouldn't it be alright to use the changing nature of parental responsibility as one argument? and talk about domestic violence and divorce in another paragraph?

Yes, absolutely. That's how I'd recommend you to do it. Just in your conclusion, sum it up through saying 'the legal framework embodying domestic violence, the changing nature of parental responsibility and... -insert niche statement here-'

As for the theory part, have it like this

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth) is a simplistic and accessible legal process which obliges parental consultation for matters and decisions regarding the child such as schooling and health. Despite the imposition of this legal obligation, the article "How Split families get along" (SMH: 2008) articulates that 1/4 of separated parents lack communication, highlighting the courts lack of enforceability in administering the 'shared responsibility' legal paradigm, which inherently requires proportionate corporation on the part of both parties. -insert another case about how husband/wife fled to another country, which also renders the shared responsibility paradigm to be inapplicable, and the court has no jurisdiction or power to bring him back to proximity with child.

That's as oppose to

"Parents never communicate and this is .... insert statement here..... This is seen in the article..."

It's just, As seen in the article, .... which states...., therefore .....

 

[Lachyy]

Moving on, any area where the law has made many changes is the area of the changing nature of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to children.
Owing to society’s changing values and the increasing levels of divorce today, the law has changed many times to ensure it is updated and relevant, however may not always achieve expected degrees of improvement. One of the most recent changes is the shift from a system of parental rights to parental responsibility for a child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) made it very clear to parents that all parental responsibility is joint under S61B and S61C and the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” except in cases such as domestic violence under S61F(1). However, this change has barely been able to make improvements, with many parents confusing the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” as spending “equal time” with the child. As a result, the law is problematic in enforcing the responsibility parent’s owe to their children, the case of Tellam V Meriami 2012 points this matter out where a father chose to disobey his responsibility to pay child support as required under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (NSW) due to only receiving minimal contact with his child. This is further reinforced by the fact that child support debt levels remain high with the newspaper article “$22m in child support debt, published by news.com.au on 16/10/13”outlining the large $324 million unpaid child support in NSW. Consequently, this showcases the inadequate improvements that these changes have made under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) to parental responsibility have made. The law still lacks a high degree of enforceability in ensuring parental responsibility is upheld due to confusion over what “equal shared parental responsibility” truly means.

Is that better? Also if on the day I forget and don't integrate and go back to "this article shows" how much do you think I would get marked down by?

Thanks for all the

 

[Spiritual Being]

Moving on, any area where the law has made many changes is the area of the changing nature of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to children.
Owing to society’s changing values and the increasing levels of divorce today, the law has changed many times to ensure it is updated and relevant, however may not always achieve expected degrees of improvement. One of the most recent changes is the shift from a system of parental rights to parental responsibility for a child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) made it very clear to parents that all parental responsibility is joint under S61B and S61C and the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” except in cases such as domestic violence under S61F(1). However, this change has barely been able to make improvements, with many parents confusing the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” as spending “equal time” with the child. As a result, the law is problematic in enforcing the responsibility parent’s owe to their children, the case of Tellam V Meriami 2012 points this matter out where a father chose to disobey his responsibility to pay child support as required under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (NSW) due to only receiving minimal contact with his child. This is further reinforced by the fact that child support debt levels remain high with the newspaper article “$22m in child support debt, published by news.com.au on 16/10/13”outlining the large $324 million unpaid child support in NSW. Consequently, this showcases the inadequate improvements that these changes have made under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) to parental responsibility have made. The law still lacks a high degree of enforceability in ensuring parental responsibility is upheld due to confusion over what “equal shared parental responsibility” truly means.

Hey,

1. Don't use moving on. It sounds colloquial, and your response starts sounding like a drag.


Here, let me briefly edit that:

The contemporary notion of parental responsibility, founded on the principle of reaffirming the child’s best interests, is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (try to find section, doesn’t really matter though) as ‘all duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to the children. Implemented to coincide with society’s changing values, the law has not been disincentive towards the concept of divorce, yet it encourages corporation to reaffirm the rights of the child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Clth) …. (that statement is kinda irrelevant to the issue, mention the act and establish your argument/evaluation of the law). The lack of enforceability attributed to the Shared Responsibility paradigm is reflected in the case Tellam v Meriami 2012, which highlights the lack of adherence to Child Support, sourced from the disproportionate ‘shared responsibility’, exhibiting ineffectiveness of the act relative to its objective.



You might get marked down as it's seen as "uses legislation/cases" as oppose to "integrating" on the marking criteria.

Just be more concise and ensure your argument has direction.

 

[Lachyy]

Alright, thanks heaps for that, I'll try and fix that for tomorrow

 

[Lachyy]

Also do you guys think 1 case or media article is enough for 1 paragraph/argument?

 

[SharkeyBoy]

Also do you guys think 1 case or media article is enough for 1 paragraph/argument?

Yep

 

[Spiritual Being]

Also do you guys think 1 case or media article is enough for 1 paragraph/argument?

ya thats pretty good

try to have 1 case and 1 media article so you have a variety and they work together to substantiate an argument

 

[ncoul]

Moving on, any area where the law has made many changes is the area of the changing nature of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to children.
Owing to society’s changing values and the increasing levels of divorce today, the law has changed many times to ensure it is updated and relevant, however may not always achieve expected degrees of improvement. One of the most recent changes is the shift from a system of parental rights to parental responsibility for a child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) made it very clear to parents that all parental responsibility is joint under S61B and S61C and the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” except in cases such as domestic violence under S61F(1). However, this change has barely been able to make improvements, with many parents confusing the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” as spending “equal time” with the child. As a result, the law is problematic in enforcing the responsibility parent’s owe to their children, the case of Tellam V Meriami 2012 points this matter out where a father chose to disobey his responsibility to pay child support as required under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (NSW) due to only receiving minimal contact with his child. This is further reinforced by the fact that child support debt levels remain high with the newspaper article “$22m in child support debt, published by news.com.au on 16/10/13”outlining the large $324 million unpaid child support in NSW. Consequently, this showcases the inadequate improvements that these changes have made under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) to parental responsibility have made. The law still lacks a high degree of enforceability in ensuring parental responsibility is upheld due to confusion over what “equal shared parental responsibility” truly means.

Is that better? Also if on the day I forget and don't integrate and go back to "this article shows" how much do you think I would get marked down by?

Thanks for all the

You're too descriptive and I think your actual argument lacks weight. I wouldn't centre a whole paragraph on misinterpretation arising from 'shared parental responsibility', merely introducing its intrinsic flaws in maintaining the protection of children, foregrounding the 'Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and other measures) Act 2011 (Cth)' - the infinitely more important reform

 

[Squar3root]

Thanks for that guys, I'm a bit worried I won't be able to learn a new writing method by tomorrow, would any of you care to read a paragraph of mine?

Q. Assess whether changes to family law are an improvement on previous law.

Paragraph 2 : Moving on, any area where the law has made many changes is the area of the changing nature of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has by law in relation to children.
Owing to society’s changing values and the increasing levels of divorce today, the law has changed many times to ensure it is updated and relevant, however may not always achieve expected degrees of improvement. One of the most recent changes is the shift from a system of parental rights to parental responsibility for a child. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) made it very clear to parents that all parental responsibility is joint under S61B and S61C and the notion of “equal shared parental responsibility” except in cases such as domestic violence under S61F(1). When two parents divorce, there still however exists confusion, with many parents believing “equal shared parental responsibility” means that they should receive “equal time” to spend with the child. This is however not the case, with the courts making parenting orders based on the child’s best interests, meaning sometimes, one parent may spend “substantial and significant time” with one parents if perceived to be more beneficial for the child under this new changes. These decisions can often lead to the parent who is ordered less contact with the child to refuse payment of child support as required under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Scheme 1988 (NSW). This is especially since changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Scheme Act 1989 (NSW) in 2008 took into account whether a parent has regular overnight care of the child in determining how much a parent was to pay. This was seen in the case of Tellam V Meriami 2012 where a father had not paid child support due to receiving minimal contact with the child, causing the plaintiff to suffer financial instability and fail her duty of parental responsibility to her child. Reinforcing this is the newspaper article “$22m in child support debt, published by news.com.au on 16/10/13” which outlines that a large $1.1million worth of child support has not been paid, with NSW leading this debt, contributing $324 million worth of unpaid child support. Both these examples outline the inadequate improvements these changes under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) to parental contact have made. Many parents choose not to comply, believing it is wrong and against their values to pay for a child they have minimal contact with, as well as the law lacking high degrees of enforceability in forcing parents to pay this compulsory child support. Consequently, the law’s improvements in this area have been problematic in enforcing the duty and responsibility parents have in relation to their children.

Too long, did not read lol