Child Inclusive Mediation: Can my child have a say?

The time of separation can be associated with complex feelings of loss and grief. It is usually at this exact time that parents are expected to make very important decisions about parenting moving forward. What household will our children live in? How much time will they spend with me and with the other parent? How are our children expected to transition into this completely novel arrangement? The resolution of parenting arrangements after separation can often be a complex process, not least of which because the idea of having to give up any time with a child can be an extremely daunting prospect when a person is already experiencing the grief and loss associated with the breakdown of their relationship with their former partner.

Separated parents usually attempt to organise their parenting arrangements via discussion, compromise and through participation in dispute resolution, such as mediation. Of course, this is a requirement under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act), save for a handful of exceptions outlined at section 60i(9) of the Act. Where parents can reach agreement, these are usually documented through a parenting plan or a binding agreement made by the Court (known as Consent Orders).

Fundamental to the dispute resolution process in relation to parenting, is the ability for separated parents to put aside what their individual wishes might be in relation to the care arrangements of the child, and to put the child’s best interests and developmental needs above their own. Sometimes traditional models of family dispute resolution and mediation do not fit the needs of separated parents and their children. It might be that Child Inclusive Mediation would be a more suitable process for these families to partake in.  A Child Inclusive Mediation provides the opportunity for the child to express their views to an independent third party- views which might not otherwise be expressed within the confines of the family dynamic.

A Child Inclusive Mediation usually involves you and the other parent, and the child (or children) separately attending upon a qualified child expert or specialist for the purpose of an interview. This child expert is usually someone who has tertiary qualifications in child psychology and oftentimes will be dually qualified in family law. They will ask subtle and non-confrontational questions to adduce the child’s views on the arrangements and ascertain any effects of the separation on the child/children.

The parents will then attend a mediation separately. It is important that parents understand the child (or children) will not attend this aspect of the Child Inclusive Mediation. The child expert may act as mediator as well, provided they have the requisite qualifications, or will remain in attendance with the mediator to provide insight into the children’s views throughout the mediation process. The child expert will usually convey what the children have told them in their private sessions, provide an expert opinion on this, and identify any potential pathways forward. It is hopeful that the parents can then come to a parenting arrangement which takes into account the child’s views, in a very safe and child focussed manner.

Not every family dynamic is suitable for Child Inclusive Mediation. The Family Law Act provides that the Court can have regard to any views expressed by the children when determining what Orders to make. However, for really young children, how much weight can the Court attach to their views? For adolescents or late teens, the weight the Court would attach to their views would likely be much higher. A Child Inclusive Mediation, might be very helpful if you have children who are of an age where they can clearly express their views and wishes. If you believe your family may benefit from Child Inclusive Mediation, or you are considering whether this is a suitable process for you, do not hesitate to reach out to our team of experienced family lawyers here at Robinson + McGuinness Family Law.

For advice in relation to your family law matter, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Lauran Clifton

Reconsideration of Final Parenting Orders – the new section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act codifies the long-standing rule set out in Rice & Asplund.

Final parenting Orders are made every day, either by consent, or following protracted litigation in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. It is intended that final parenting Orders apply and operate until the children turn 18 years old. However, it is sometimes necessary for final parenting Orders to be reconsidered prior to their expiry to ensure that the Orders continue to operate in the best interests of the children.

Commencing 6 May 2024, the Family Law Act 1975 will be amended to insert a new section 65DAAA into the Act; this new section of the Act will specifically deal with the reconsideration of final parenting Orders (something which previously has only been dealt with by case law).

The new section 65DAAA will state:

If a final parenting Order is in force in relation to a child, a court must not reconsider the final parenting order unless:

1. The Court has considered whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made; and

2. The Court is satisfied that, in all circumstances (and taking into account whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made), it is in the best interests of the child for the final parenting order to be reconsidered.

The new section 65DAAA will apply to all matters before the Court from 6 May 2024.

The new section 65DAAA is a codification of the principle set out in the case of Rice & Asplund, which provides that the Court should only hear an application to alter an earlier parenting Order if the Court is satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstances such that a rehearing of what is in the children’s best interests is warranted.

When deciding whether there has been a significant change in circumstances, such to justify the reopening of the proceedings, the judicial officer is required to make a discretionary decision about whether the Applicant’s evidence demonstrates a prima facie change in circumstances and weigh the significance of that change, against the potential benefit or detriment to the children caused by the reopening of the proceedings.

What is a significant change in circumstances?

With the amendments not due to come into effect until 6 May 2024, there is no current case law outlining what the Court considers to be a significant change in circumstances. However, until such case law exists, it is expected that the Court will have regard to previous case law which has dealt with the principle set out in Rice & Asplund.

Rice & Asplund considers material changes in circumstances; examples of which include:

• A decision by one of the parties to relocate which was not contemplated at the time of the final parenting Orders being made;

• The views of a child in circumstances where time has elapsed since the making of the final Orders; and

• A change in a parent’s mental health and wellbeing.

A further discussion about what is classified as a material change in circumstances can be found here.

The Court does not entertain applications to amend or set aside an earlier parenting Order lightly. If you are considering such an application it is important that you obtain specialist family law advice. Contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Financial resources and how they impact property settlements

The definition of “property” in the context of a property settlement in Australia is outlined in section 4 of the Family Law Act 1975 (“FLA”). It defines the “property" as:

(a) in relation to the parties to a marriage or either of them--means property to which those parties are, or that party is, as the case may be, entitled, whether in possession or reversion; or

(b) in relation to the parties to a de facto relationship or either of them--means property to which those parties are, or that party is, as the case may be, entitled, whether in possession or reversion.

The property pool that is considered available for division between separated couples usually includes assets such as cash in bank accounts, real properties, shares, investments, superannuation, motor vehicles, furniture, jewelry, business interests, etc.

While the definition of financial resources differs from assets when considering a property settlement, the FLA does not provide a specific definition for it. In the High Court case of Hall & Hall [2016] HCA 23 defined a financial resource as “a source of financial support which a party can reasonably suspect to be available to him or her to supply a financial need or deficiency”.

A financial resource may have the potential to generate future income or to give access to capital, which may not be immediately divisible but can influence the financial situation of a party in the future.

The Court may take into account financial resources of the parties and may adjust the division of the property pool having regard to those financial resources. Such adjustments will usually be based on the future needs of each party, ensuring a fair distribution that accounts for both current assets and future financial prospects.

Financial resources may include:

• Future Inheritances: Expecting to receive an inheritance even if not in the near future, can still be considered a potential financial resource. It can significantly impact a party's future financial security/position.

• Trust Beneficiaries: Interests in trusts, especially where an individual is a discretionary beneficiary, may not provide immediate financial benefits but can be regarded as a potential future income stream or cash flow, depending on what has happened in the past.

• Superannuation Interests: A superannuation interest is generally treated as property and can be available for spitting if necessary. However, the defined benefit superannuation schemes, known for their (at times, generous) pension phase, may generate significant income for one party upon retirement. Therefore, this entitlement is considered more as a valuable financial resource than mere property, especially in the long term. Consideration must be given to the nature of the interest at the time (i.e. whether it is in the growth phase or payment phase).

• Employment Leave: Significant periods of leave, such as long service leave may be seen as financial resources. This perspective was supported by Baker J in the Whitehead case (1979), where it was concluded that accrued long-service leave entitlements constitute a financial resource rather than an asset.

• Pending Legal Claims: An anticipated payout from litigation, such as a personal injury claim or other litigation where a financial settlement is expected, are likely to be included as they represent a future financial benefit.

• Loan Repayments: The expected repayment of loans owed to an individual can improve their financial position once received, and therefore be taken into account.

• Business Goodwill: The value associated with a business’s reputation and client relationships, particularly if it could generate financial gain beyond tangible assets, can also be considered as a financial resource.

• Tax Losses: Tax losses that can be used to offset future taxable income, therefore improving financial status, can also be seen as a financial resource.

• Support from Family Members: Regular or reliable financial support or expected support from family members, while not a formal asset, can be considered a financial resource due to its potential effect on an individual's financial position.

In summary, the consideration of relevant financial resources is essential for achieving a fair and equitable property settlement when negotiating a property settlement with a former spouse. The identification of these resources is important and should not be overlooked.

If you are exploring a property settlement and you need family law advice it is beneficial to see a specialist. To make an appointment with a member of our team please contact us today at (02) 6225 7040 or by email info@rmfamilylaw.com.au.

Property Settlements: The death of a party

When one party of a breakdown relationship is terminally ill, it can have significant implications to the distribution of their property, if the party passes away. Whilst a morbid and uncomfortable topic, it is an extremely important one to consider, as it can have serious consequences on a party’s assets, and how they are dealt with after a party’s death.

Death prior to commencing proceedings

Where neither party has commenced court proceedings in the Family Law jurisdiction, the matter will be dealt with under the estate law of the applicable state or territory of Australia. This might mean that if the terminally ill party did not update their will after separation, their former spouse (if provided for in the deceased’s will) may inherit from their estate. This may or may not be the intention of the deceased party.

Seeking legal advice becomes even more pertinent in family law matters when one party is terminally ill. Generally most parties will attempt to resolve their matter outside of the Court system, through independent negotiation and sometimes formal mediation. These pre-action procedures still apply despite the ill-health of a party.

However, if the matter is unable to be resolved through these means, sometimes the only alternative course of action is to make an application to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to resolve the matter.

Death after commencing proceedings

So, what happens when a party dies prior to a matter being resolved, but after filing an application? Where proceedings have commenced in the Family Law jurisdiction, and a party dies, Section 79(8) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and Rule 3.19 of the Family Law Rules 2021 apply. The Court may allow for the substitution of the deceased party by their legal personal representative - usually the executor of their estate, or another appropriate party - to ensure the legal proceedings can continue.

The personal legal representative will usually engage in Family Law proceedings with the view of recovering the deceased’s share of the matrimonial property pool for distribution according to their will. However, it is important to remember that the Orders that the Court will ultimately make are likely to be significantly different to the Orders the Court would have made if the party had not died. One example of how such a difference in outcome occurs is that the Court cannot consider the future needs of a party if they have passed away.

Family law and the death of a party can be complex and nuanced. In the event you are faced with this circumstance, you should obtain specialist family law advice. Contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on 02 6225 7040 or by email at info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Lauran Clifton

Travel and Parenting Orders

With the school holidays fast approaching, many parents will be travelling internationally with their children. These experiences are seen as a once in a lifetime opportunity for lots of families and the benefits of international travel on the growth of a child can be intangible. As a separated parent, travelling with children gives rise to additional considerations and planning- on top of the effort which already goes into the trip itself.

This situation becomes complex for separated parents who are involved in current proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or where separated parents have already entered into parenting orders restricting their children from international travel. Sections 65Y and 65Z of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) specifically set out that if a parent, who is subject to a parenting order or where orders are pending (for example, awaiting the delivery of a judgment on an interim or final basis) removes a child from the jurisdiction of Australia, this parent has committed an offence. This offence carries a penalty of three years imprisonment.

What if I do not have orders in place or I am not in litigation?

A separated parent seeking to travel overseas with their children should approach the other parent and seek their consent for the travel in the first instance. Ideally, the parent seeking to travel would provide all the relevant information and details of the proposed travel- and with as much notice as possible- including duration, destination, method of travel, copies of travel tickets and itinerary, and where possible provide options for maintaining communication between the other parent and the children whilst overseas.

If the other parent refuses consent to the travel, you may need to apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for approval to travel. It is commonplace for this Court to make Orders pertaining to travel and provide for international travel so long as enough notice is provided, and the travel is to a Hague Convention Country, and that they are satisfied that the child will return to Australia at the end of the proposed travel. Often, the Courts order makeup time for the non-travelling parent if time with that parent is affected by the child’s travel.

What if I have concerns about my child’s international travel with the other parent?

In some cases, parents will have genuine concerns about a child travelling internationally for a number of reasons- risks to personal safety and wellbeing; impact on education if the child is missing school for a prolonged period of time; and where the parent holds a genuine concern that the child might be permanently removed from the jurisdiction of Australia. There may be valid reasons for a parent to not provide consent to the travel.

If you hold this concern about your child’s travel, you can make an application to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to have the child placed on the Australian Federal Police Watchlist. This can only occur via a Court Order and will prevent that child leaving any port of exit from the jurisdiction of Australia. In cases of urgency- where you have a grave concern that your child will be travelling imminently with the other parent- this process can occur very quickly.

It is important for separated parents to balance the benefits of overseas travel for their children with the possible competing interests of ensuring their safety and wellbeing. It is important to seek the other parent’s consent in the first instance when seeking to take your child overseas- and with enough notice where possible. If you are planning a holiday with your children, contact Robinson + McGuinness for specialist family law advice.

Contact Robinson + McGuinness today to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email at info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers to obtain advice.

Author: Lauran Clifton

Spousal Maintenance – What is it and who can apply for it?

The breakdown of a relationship is a daunting process for many; there are several unknowns, including how life will be funded without a dual income pending the completion of a property settlement.  More often than not, there is an income discrepancy between the parties of the relationship, and this can cause anxiety for the party with a lower income. They may be concerned about how they will afford basic living expenses and accommodation.  

What is spousal maintenance?

The Family Law Act places an obligation on a party to a marriage or de facto relationship to maintain the other party, to the extent that they are reasonably able to do so, in the event that the other party is unable to support themselves adequately due to:

1. The care of a child under the age of 18 years;

2. The party’s age, physical or mental incapacity to gain meaningful employment;

3. Or any other matter considered relevant by the Court.

This obligation is known as spousal maintenance.

In more general terms, spousal maintenance becomes applicable when one party has a shortfall between their income and outgoings, and the other party has the capacity to assist in meeting those outgoings once they have paid for their own reasonable expenses.

There are many forms of spousal maintenance, including:

• Urgent spousal maintenance – where the Court can make an order pending consideration of the need for ongoing maintenance;

• Periodic spousal maintenance – where the Court makes an order, either interim or final, for payments to be made for a period of time (i.e. weekly);

• Lump sum spousal maintenance; and

• An order for the sole use of property (i.e. the former matrimonial home or a vehicle).

Spousal maintenance orders tend to be made on an interim basis, or for a set period on a final basis, to enable the applying party’s circumstances to change such that they can financially support themselves (i.e. return to work once young children go to school, complete studies that will allow them to obtain meaningful employment, or the completion of a property settlement which accounts for the parties’ future needs, including incomes disparity and age).

Who can apply for spousal maintenance?

Spousal maintenance proceedings can be commenced by either party to a marriage or a de facto relationship.  The proceedings can be commenced as follows:

• For married couples: during the relationship, at any point following separation and within 12 months of a divorce order being granted; and

• For de facto couples: within 2 years of separation.

Spousal maintenance proceedings are separate to property settlement proceedings.  While they often run concurrently, there is no need to have a property settlement application before the Court in order to commence spousal maintenance proceedings.

What evidence is required?

When applying for spousal maintenance, the applicant will need to give evidence about the following matters:

• The nature of their relationship with the other party – i.e. was there a marriage or de facto relationship?  

• If the proceedings are to be commenced out of time (see time limits above), an explanation as to why that is the case and a request for leave to apply out of time must be made.

• The applicant’s income and reasonable living expenses.

• Details of why the applicant says they are unable to adequately meet their expenses – i.e. is there something that precludes them from obtaining meaningful employment, or employment with greater renumeration?  Evidence should also be given about the arrangements that were in place during the relationship – i.e. if the Applicant was the primary carer of small children during the relationship, this is a relevant factor for the Court to consider.

If applicable, independent evidence should also be provided to the Court to assist the determination of a spousal maintenance application. Independent evidence would be applicable if, for example, the applicant said they were unable to work due to a disability or illness.

No two family law matters are the same, and while there can be similarities between cases each case must be assessed based on its own facts.  In the event you are considering filing a spousal maintenance application you should first obtain specialist family law advice in relation to the evidence that you can give in support of your application, and the prospects of your application being successful.

Contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Peta Sutton

Trusts & Family Law

Trusts, and specifically discretionary family trusts, are commonly utilised as means of holding income generating assets and distributing that income to beneficiaries, who are often family members. When a relationship breaks down, and one or both of the parties hold assets in a trust, questions often arise as to how the trust, and the property of the trust, will be dealt with in the family law settlement. Trusts can be a complex area in settlements, as sometimes they are used by one party to protect or exclude assets, or to prevent the other party from accessing their share of the property.

There is a misconception that if assets are held in a trust, they are to be excluded from the property settlement. This may or may not be the case depending on the structure, composition and set up of the Trust.

There are two ways trusts are likely to be dealt with by the Court- it can be treated as an asset to be included in the matrimonial asset pool or as a financial resource. Trusts are more likely to be considered an asset for distribution if the Court is satisfied that the Trusts’ assets form part of the property of the parties to the marriage or de facto relationship. Under section 4 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) “property” holds a very broad meaning, and the Court has demonstrated its willingness to include trust assets in a property division where certain factors relating to “control of the trust” exist. Where one party has effective control of the trust (i.e. if one party is the trustee, or an appointor) it is more likely to be included as property to be distributed in a family law settlement (see Kennon v Spry [2008] HCA 56 (3 December 2008)).

The Court has also demonstrated that where trust assets do not fall within the definition of property, the Court can still consider whether the parties have received benefits or distributions from the Trust and whether they are likely to in the future, notwithstanding a lack of control over the trust. In this scenario, the Court is likely to consider Trust property as a financial resource of that party under section 75(2) of the Act when determining the overall settlement.

Trusts are a complex area of family law and can require the input and advice of financial advisors, accountants, and solicitors. Whether a trust asset will form part of the matrimonial asset pool available for distribution and whether it is outside of the reach of a property settlement in the context of family law will depend on the specific circumstances of your matter.

For specialist family law advice, including the effects of trusts in a family law property settlement, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email at info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers to obtain advice.

Author: Lauran Clifton

Assessing contributions

Assessing contributions is an important step in determining how to arrive at a just and equitable property settlement between separated couples.

What contributions does the Court consider? 

Section 79 and 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 requires an assessment of the following contributions:

1. Financial contributions towards the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of property. These contributions may include financial contributions received by way of income, inheritances, redundancy payments, compensation awards, and windfalls such as lottery wins;

2. Non-financial contributions made towards the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of property. These contributions may include a party conducting renovations toward real property at no cost; and

3. Contributions made towards the welfare of the family through homemaking and parenting contributions.

When does the Court assess contributions? 

The Court assesses contributions made at the commencement of the relationship (in particular, whether one or both parties had significant assets at the commencement of the relationship), during the relationship, and post-separation (if relevant).

What weight is given to contributions made by either party? 

The weighing of contributions is not a mathematical exercise. Weighing of contributions has been described by the Court as being a holistic assessment of the myriad of contributions that are made by parties throughout the course of their relationship.

Each case is different, and all contributions made by parties are unique to their own circumstances. The Court has the discretion to make an adjustment in favour of either party after assessing those contributions.

The size of the adjustment given to a party based on their contributions will depend on a range of factors including the contribution that was made relative to the asset pool that exists (in the case of a financial contribution) or the passage of time since that contribution was made, and importantly, weighing the relevant contribution against contributions made by the other party to the relationship or marriage.

Do some contributions carry more weight than others?

Historically, the Court placed more weight upon financial contributions (by way of income) over contributions made as homemaker and parent, in cases where it was said that the primary income earner exercised “special skill” in order to make those financial contributions. In traditional relationships at that time, this would advantage the primary breadwinner (often the Husband) and disadvantage the party who had made contributions within the home that prevented them from earning an income (often the Wife). The Court has since disapproved of that approach and “special skills” are no longer recognised as being a particular category of financial contribution.  

For specialist advice regarding your property settlement, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers. The sooner you seek advice the better – so you can make informed decisions about your options.

Author: Margot McCabe

Parental Responsibility Explained

‘Parental responsibility’ refers to the duties, powers and responsibilities that a parent has in relation to a child.  This becomes an important consideration as you navigate the journey of co-parenting after separation.

Parental responsibility determines who makes long-term decisions about a child, such as what school a child attends, where a child lives and whether a child practices a religion. Section 65DAE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that parents are not required to consult on day-to-day issues (or issues that are not major long-term issues) – for example, what a child wears or what type of food a child takes in their lunchbox.

In the absence of a Court Order determining parental responsibility, there is a presumption that both parents have ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ (also referred to as ‘ESPR’).  ESPR requires that parents consult with each other about any long-term decision to be made, and make a genuine effort to come to that decision jointly.

This presumption is set out in section 61DA of the Family Law Act.  The presumption of ESPR does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of a child has been abusive towards that child (or another child in the family), or if they have engaged in family violence, including towards the other parent.

If there is enough evidence to satisfy a Court that an order for ESPR is not appropriate in the circumstances, the Court may make an order for ‘sole parental responsibility’.  A Court may consider that an order for sole parental responsibility is appropriate if the parents are unable to make decisions jointly, or if the communication between the parents would make an order for ESPR untenable.

On a final basis the Court must disregard any orders made on an interim basis about the allocation of parental responsibility. This means if your matter is in Court and an order has been made for ESPR on an interim basis, the Court may ultimately decide that ESPR is not appropriate on a final basis.

It is also important to understand that parental responsibility does not determine what time a child spends with each parent. An order for ESPR does not automatically mean that a child will spend equal time with each parent. Courts will consider what is in a child’s best interests and whether an equal time arrangement would be reasonably practicable, among other things.

If you are unable to reach a joint decision about a major long-term issue regarding your child, or if you are concerned about sharing parental responsibility with your former spouse, you should contact a family lawyer to better understand your rights and obligations. If you are ready to book an initial appointment with a specialist family lawyer in Canberra, contact us on (02) 6225 7040, by email at info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers to obtain advice.

Author: Anika Buckley

Enforcement of Financial Orders

The Family Law Act sets out options available to parties to seek enforcement of Orders in relation to financial matters. Regrettably, in some cases, it can become necessary to seek enforcement of Orders where a party is not compliant with Orders of the Court.

When can I seek enforcement of Orders?

Enforcement can be sought where pursuant to Orders, maintenance agreements or Binding Financial Agreements made pursuant to the Family Law Act:

1. There is an obligation on a party to pay money;

2. There is an obligation on a party to sign a document;

3. A party is entitled to possession of real property; or

4. A party is entitled to transfer or delivery of personal property.

Although less common, there are other circumstances in which a party can take enforcement action against a non-compliant party, such as there where a party has registered an arbitral award, a child support liability or where there is an overseas maintenance order that has been registered in Australia.

How do I enforce Orders?

Methods of enforcement available to a party seeking compliance with Orders pursuant to the Family Law Act include:

1.  Appointing a Registrar of the Court

   A Registrar of the Court can be appointed to sign documents in place of a non-complaint party, such as Transfer documents in order to progress the transfer of a house, transferring shares or, closing bank accounts.

2. Third Party Debt Notice

   A Third Party Debt Notice requires a third party to discharge a debt by redirecting funds to which the non-compliant party would otherwise be entitled, to the party seeking enforcement. For example, a party seeking enforcement could seek that the non-compliant party’s wage be directed to them instead over a period of time in order to satisfy a debt.

3. Trustee for sale of real property

   If an Enforcement Warrant has been obtained in relation to real property in which the non-compliant party has an interest, a party can seek to be appointed as Trustee for Sale of real property. If a party is appointed as Trustee for sale it will generally be necessary to also seek that a Registrar of the Court be appointed to execute documents on behalf of the non-compliant party (as above).

4. Warrants for possession of property

   A party seeking enforcement of Orders can apply for a warrant for possession of real property, personal property, or for the seizure or detention of property owned by the non-complying party, which can then be sold, for example, to satisfy a debt.

There are other forms of relief available to a party seeking enforcement of Orders, including sequestration of property, receivership and seeking that a non-complaint party be declared bankrupt. It is likely that the Court would only adopt such methods of enforcement if other attempts at enforcement had been exhausted or there were circumstances justifying forms of enforcement that could be considered severe or prejudicial to the non-compliant party.

Can I seek that my legal costs be paid by the non-compliant party?

The Court has general powers of enforcement, including the power to make Orders that one party pay the other party’s costs. Although costs to do always “follow the event” i.e., the winning party does not always get their costs reimbursed, the Court is sometimes more inclined to order that a non-compliant meet the other party’s costs of enforcement, arising out of the non-compliant party’s failure to comply with an Order of the Court, as it has been unfair that the applicant has had to pursue such steps.

For specialist family law advice including about enforcement, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

Protection and Separation

Separating from a spouse can be one of the riskiest times for an individual, particularly where family violence has been a feature of the relationship. The legal definition of ‘family violence’ can be found at section 8 of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) or section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The definition in both pieces of legislation is broad and canvasses many different types of behaviour that constitute family violence.

Sometimes an individual may not recognise that certain behaviours they have experienced during their relationship constitute family violence until they are out of that relationship. Other times, an individual may have felt powerless or not known what avenues are open to them to protect their safety.

In the ACT, any person can apply for an interim Family Violence Order (FVO) for their immediate protection, or to prevent substantial property damage. Applications for a FVO are generally heard ex parte, meaning that the Court considers the applicant’s evidence in the absence of the respondent (the person who the FVO is being sought against).  

If the Court is satisfied that an applicant is in need of immediate protection, an interim FVO will be granted on the same day as the application is made. The interim FVO generally remains in place for 12 months, pending a final hearing where the Court will determine the application on a final basis (namely whether a final order should be made protecting the applicant). An interim FVO can be extended in some circumstances.

In the ACT, the Australian Federal Police will serve a copy of the application and the FVO on the respondent.

Either party can file documents seeking to amend an FVO, if amending the order will not adversely affect the safety of the protected person. For example, if the protected person’s circumstances have changed since the making of the FVO, or if the FVO restricts the respondent’s rights unnecessarily.    
If you are experiencing family violence, or are at risk of experiencing family violence, it is worthwhile speaking to one of our experienced family lawyers. We can advise you on your prospects of successfully obtaining an FVO and what type of restrictions you might want to seek in a protection order based on your experiences in the relationship, and your concerns.  

We can also advise on the next steps once an FVO has been granted (whether you are the applicant or the respondent), including any flow-on effects that an FVO may have on your family law matter.

In the event you are concerned for your safety, there are a number of services available to you:

1. If you are concerned for your immediate safety, you should contact 000.

2. The Domestic Violence Crisis Service offers assistance with safety planning and can be contacted on (02) 6280 0900.

3. To discuss a potential breach of a Family Violence Order, you should contact 131 444 (the non-urgent ACT Policing number).

For advice in relation to your property settlement, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Anika Buckley

Costs: When can you seek that one party meet your legal costs of family law proceedings?

The Family Law Act provides for each party to bear their own legal costs. In some cases however, a party may seek that the other meet their legal fees.

Section 117(2) of the Act provides that the Court may make an order that one party meet the other party’s costs of Court proceeding, “if there are circumstances that justify it doing so”.

Costs applications are commonly made where one party has made an offer to resolve the proceedings, the offer is rejected by the other party, and then the first mentioned party goes on to receive a similar or more advantageous outcome than the offer that was refused.

If I am successful in the proceedings, do I automatically get a costs order?

Costs will not automatically be awarded at the conclusion of a hearing. This is consistent with the general principle in family law proceedings that each party will be responsible for meeting their own costs.

If you wish to seek that the other party meet your costs, it will be necessary to file an Application, with a supporting Affidavit. The Court will conduct a separate hearing of your costs application, either by considering the documents in Chambers (where the parties do not need to appear) or at a hearing. Unfortunately, this means that you are likely to incur further legal costs whilst seeking that the other party meet your costs of the proceedings.

What will be considered when determining a costs application?

The Court will have regard to the following matters, as identified in section 117(2A) of the Family Law Act:

1. The financial circumstances of each of the parties to the proceedings;

2. Whether any party to the proceedings is in receipt of assistance from Legal Aid, and the terms of that assistance;

3. The conduct of the parties to the proceedings;

4. Whether the proceedings were necessary as a result of one party’s failure to comply with Orders of the Court;

5. Whether any party to the proceedings has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings;

6. Whether any party to the proceedings has made an offer of settlement in writing to the other party, and the terms of any such offer;

7. Any other relevant matter.

Will I be reimbursed all of my costs?

If a costs order is made, it will not necessarily provide for you to be reimbursed for the amount you spent on the litigation. The Court can consider awarding costs from the date that the offer was made (and for rejected) until the conclusion of the proceedings for example.

The Court has the power to order that a party meet the other party’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis, or in accordance with a scale of costs set in the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021. The scale of costs set in the Family Law Rules is significantly lower than the costs that a party would likely have incurred with their solicitor.

Indemnity costs effectively provide for a party to be reimbursed the costs incurred by them with their solicitor (for the relevant period, from when the offer was made until the conclusion of the hearing). It is rare that the Court orders one party to pay costs on an indemnity basis. In order to do so, the Court must be satisfied that a party “imprudently refused of an offer to compromise”, as found in the case of Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons [1993] FCA 536. Indemnity costs can also be ordered against a party who has failed to comply with Court Orders or who has improperly conducted themselves throughout proceedings.

The Court may also order that costs be paid as assessed or agreed, whereby if the parties cannot agree on the amount of costs to be paid, an independent assessor can be appointed to determine the amount of costs payable, based on what costs were reasonably incurred during the proceedings. The costs assessor is entitled to be paid for their work in assessing the costs also.

What does this mean for me?

The above matters emphasise the importance of making reasonable offers to resolve your family law matter, and also the necessity to consider any offer of settlement very carefully.

If you wish to obtain advice in relation to your family law matter, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

Family Law and financial disclosure: What you need to know

The Family Law Act 1975 and Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 sets out the obligations on parties to provide full and frank financial disclosure of their financial circumstances. Parties have an ongoing obligation to provide information and documents relating to their income, property and financial resources. Having transparency regarding the financial circumstances of the other enables parties to be able to negotiate a robust settlement, and indeed, a financial settlement cannot occur if the asset pool is unknown.

What information do I need to provide?

You have an obligation to provide information and documents in relation to income, financial resources, assets, liabilities, and superannuation in which you have a legal or equitable interest.

The obligation to provide financial disclosure only extends to documents which are in your possession or control. Generally, a party is able to access documents such as bank statements, Notices of Assessments issued by the ATO, superannuation statements, etc. A party may receive a request for disclosure documents where they cannot fulfill the request. This could occur, for example, where disclosure may be sought in relation to the quantum of a distribution received from an inheritance or compensation award, when the amount may not yet be determined.

Do I need to comply with all requests?

A request for disclosure should be answered within a reasonable timeframe, subject to the request for documents being reasonable, and relating to the issues in dispute.

If you have received a request for financial disclosure which you think is unreasonable, seek legal advice.

Is it sufficient to provide information about my financial circumstances?

By agreement, parties can exchange information relating to their financial circumstances, as opposed to a formal exchange of documents. However, a party is entitled to request documents, if that remains their preference.

Can I provide disclosure of the value of my interest in property at the date of separation?

It is necessary to provide financial disclosure in relation to the current value of assets, liabilities and superannuation. Although the value of property at the time of separation may be a relevant consideration, as well as what contributions have been made by each party following separation, generally the Court requires the most up to date information about the value of assets, liabilities or superannuation, rather than adopting the values of property as at the date of separation.

Do I need to provide more information after we have participated in an exchange of financial disclosure?

The obligation to provide financial disclosure regarding your financial circumstances is an ongoing obligation. It is necessary for parties to provide updates in relation to their financial circumstances  until a property settlement has been finalised, either by entering into Orders or a Binding Financial Agreement. That obligation exists irrespective of whether there has been a request for updating financial disclosure. If your financial circumstances materially change, there is an obligation to inform your former partner about that change.

What does this mean for you?

If you are uncertain about your legal obligations in relation to the provision of financial disclosure, or your former partner is refusing or delaying the provision of financial disclosure, you should seek legal advice.

It is prudent to obtain advice tailored to your circumstances from a family lawyer, ideally as soon as possible after separation, in order to preserve your interests. Contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

Exploring the Proposed Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975

In early 2023, following reviews by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee into Australia’s family law system, the Attorney-General’s Department published an exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 for public comment. The primary focus of the proposed amendments is ensuring that the family law system prioritises and recognises the best interests of the child.

 The amendment Bill contains a number of proposed changes. Some of the most significant are:

The Removal of the Presumption of Equal Shared Parental Responsibility

Currently, section 61DA of the Family Law Act applies a presumption that parents should receive equal shared parental responsibility unless a party can show the Court that it is not in the best interests of the child. The removal of this presumption could make the process for obtaining parenting orders simpler for parties, which would in turn allow the Court to better focus on understanding the best interests of the child.

An Overhaul of the Factors Considered by the Court when Determining the Best Interests of the Child

In its existing form, the Family Law Act provides two main factors and thirteen additional factors to be considered when determining what parenting arrangement would be in the best interests of the child. The suggested changes see this being simplified to six factors of equal weight. There is also a seventh factor to be applied when the child identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Requiring that the Independent Children’s Lawyer meet with the Child

Independent Children’s Lawyers are not presently required to meet with the child whose interests they are representing. It is being proposed that Independent Children’s Lawyers must meet with all children over the age of five, so that they are able to voice any views or concerns they may have in relation to the matter.

Restricting the Filing of Potentially Harmful Applications

The amendment Bill seeks to limit the filing of applications which may be especially harmful to the child and/or the respondent. Under the proposed changes, the Court would have the power to dismiss applications it believes are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

Notwithstanding these proposed changes, navigating the family law system can be complex and confusing. To make an appointment with one of our experienced family lawyers please contact our office on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online.

Author: Hannah Gibson

Can I Change My Child’s Surname?

The Family Law Act 1975 requires that parents endeavor to reach agreement about any major long term issue associated with a child. Major long term issues include matters such as which school to enroll a child, decisions relating to the child’s health, or the child’s religious or cultural upbringing. Another major long term issue specified within the Family Law Act is the surname used by a child.

If parents can’t agree about changing a child’s surname, an Application needs to be made to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to seek orders for the child’s change of name. The Court also has the power to make orders restraining a parent from allowing or permitting the child to be known by a name other than their surname. Except in cases of urgency, parties to Court proceedings need to participate in mediation before commencing Court proceedings.

In the case of Chapman and Palmer, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia said that when considering an application for a change of name (or considering whether to restrain the use of a name other than the child’s surname), the Court should have regard to:

1.   The welfare of the child as the paramount consideration;

2.   The short and long term effects of any change in the child’s surname;

3.   Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if the child had a different surname to the parent with whom the child lives;

4.   Any confusion of identity if a child’s name were to be changed, or not changed;

5.   The effect that any change in surname may have on the relationship between the child and the parent that the child has previously shared their surname with; and

6.   The effect of frequent or random changes of name.

Although these factors have often been referred to in subsequent case law, these factors are by no means an exhaustive list of the considerations which the Court can take into account when considering an application for a change of name. Other factors have been considered by the Court, such as the parent’s desire for the child to be known by their original name, the degree of identification that a child has with their parent with whom they share their original surname and the degree of identification with a step-parent or partner of their other parent.

It is prudent to obtain advice tailored to your particular circumstances from a family lawyer. Contact Robinson + McGuinness to make an appointment on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

Spousal Maintenance and Maintenance Orders. What, Why, When, Where, How?

The Family Court has the ability to order that one party to a marriage (or a de facto relationship) pay spousal maintenance to the other if that party is not able to adequately meet their own reasonable needs.

What is spousal maintenance?

Spousal maintenance is the provision of financial support from one party to a relationship with the other (post-separation). Orders for payment of spousal maintenance may be made with the agreement of parties (i.e. by consent), or as determined by the Court. Generally, the provision of maintenance is aimed at enabling one party to meet their reasonable needs, as opposed to meeting discretionary expenditure, or for the provision of luxury items, such as holidays.

The “reasonable need” is generally considered as relating to expenditures such as housing, utility expenses, food, clothing, medical needs, etc.

Why does the Court make Orders for spousal maintenance?

Spousal maintenance may be ordered to be paid from one party to another if the ‘paying party’ is considered to be liable to maintain the other (and if they are reasonably able to do so).

The ‘receiving party’ must be unable to support themselves, as a result of:

1. Having the care and control of a child of the relationship under 18 years of age;

2. Their age or physical or mental incapacity to obtain employment; or

3. Any other adequate reason.

There are a number of factors that the Court can take into account when considering an application for spousal maintenance, including:

1. The age and state of health of the parties;

2. The length of their relationship;

3. The income of each of the parties, and their physical and mental capacity to obtain gainful employment, as well as their financial circumstances generally and financial resources available to them;

4. Whether one party has the care of children from the relationship;

5. A standard of living that is reasonable in the circumstances.

When can the Court order spousal maintenance?

The Court has the power to order that spousal maintenance be paid during a relationship or following separation. In the case of Eliades & Eliades (1981), the Court made Orders to the Wife in an intact marriage. There are time limits that apply as to when a party may seek that orders be made for spousal maintenance, and accordingly, you should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances in relation to a property settlement and/or maintenance as soon as possible after separation.

In terms of the frequency of the payment, spousal maintenance may be ordered to be paid either as a periodic payment (i.e. per week, fortnight, or month), or as a lump sum.

Where can an order for spousal maintenance be made?

Orders can be made for payment of spousal maintenance within Australia, and also in circumstances where a party is living overseas.

A maintenance order made in another jurisdiction may also be registered and enforced in Australia. You should receive advice tailored to your circumstances if seeking to register a maintenance order made overseas. The jurisdictional requirements are complex and vary from one jurisdiction to another, and whether an overseas order can be enforced in Australia is dependent on whether Australia has a reciprocal arrangement with the country where the maintenance Order was originally made.

How does the Court have the power to make an order for payment of spousal maintenance?

The Court has the power to make orders for spousal maintenance pursuant to Section 74 of the Family Law Act 1975, to make such order as it considers ‘proper’.

Adult child maintenance

In certain circumstances, the Family Court can also make orders for a parent (or parents) to pay adult child maintenance to a child aged over 17 years (or to the other parent for the benefit of the adult child). The Court will consider any medical and/or educational issues that may be preventing the adult child from being able to earn an income to support themself. The capacity of the parent being asked to pay the adult child maintenance is also a relevant factor that the Court must consider before imposing any order on a parent.

If you would like legal advice about your specific circumstances, including property settlement or spousal maintenance matters, contact us today at (02) 6225 7040 or by email at info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online.

Author: Margot McCabe

Multi-purpose documents? Harman Undertakings & sharing the evidence

Following the breakdown of a relationship, you can find yourself facing multiple legal issues, including arrangements for the children, dividing property and in some cases, allegations of family violence arise. It is not uncommon for someone to be involved in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) (dealing with parenting or property matters), as well as proceedings before the ACT Magistrates Court.

As part of parenting proceedings, the FCFCOA sometimes will make an order for you and the other party to attend upon a psychologist for the purposes of preparing a Family Report. The Family Report is admissible in the FCFCOA proceedings; however you may consider that the report is useful to defend some of the allegations in the proceedings before the ACT Magistrates Court. Similarly, there may be certain evidence (including Affidavits or subpoena material) which would assist you in defending proceedings before the ACT Magistrates Court.

Where documents have been prepared for the purposes of proceedings before the FCFCOA, you are not automatically allowed to use those documents in proceedings outside of the FCFCOA. This is due to an implied undertaking or obligation to the Court (known as the Harman Undertaking), that documents prepared for the purposes of the FCFCOA proceedings will only be used for that purpose.

Separately, section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) imposes a restriction on the publication of any part of family law proceedings which identifies any person that is a party to or otherwise associated with those proceedings. However, this only relates to the voluntary broadcasting of information and does not apply to evidence to be given in Court.

In special circumstances, the Court may grant leave (or permission) for the release of certain documents (or parts of documents) to use in other proceedings (such as criminal or civil proceedings). The Court will consider whether there are ‘special circumstances’ (or a legitimate reason for the release of the document(s)) and whether there is any injustice caused to a party in providing that document.

You must make an application to the Court for leave to be released from the Harman Undertaking.  Where there is an application for documents to be released to the ACT Magistrates Court, it is likely that you will be able to argue that the document will remain confidential if it is just being released to the Magistrate. You should also consider whether you need a full document, or whether certain paragraphs of that document will be sufficient for the purposes of defending or supporting your matter before the ACT Magistrates Court.

In any event, it is important for you to seek advice from a lawyer if you wish to use certain evidence before the FCFCOA in proceedings before the ACT Magistrates Court. A lawyer can assist you with assessing the probative value of that evidence, and the process of obtaining the release of that document. Robinson + McGuinness is available to assist you with your family law matters and personal protection matters, including applications for release of documents.

If you would like advice in relation to your family law matter, contact our office at (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online to make an appointment with one of our experienced family lawyers.

Author: Anika Buckley

Superannuation and Pensions in Property Settlements in Australia

In most property settlements, each party will have superannuation entitlements with one or more superannuation funds. After the breakdown of a marriage or de facto relationship, it is prudent to obtain advice as to whether to seek an adjustment of superannuation interests, including pensions in payment phase.

Is it necessary to value superannuation?

One of the first steps in the property settlement process is to identify and value all of the assets, liabilities and superannuation owned by each party, or in which they have an interest. It is generally not necessary to value superannuation funds, except where one party has an interest in a defined benefit scheme or fund. The value of a defined benefit fund is determined by reference to a number of considerations, such as the salary of the member spouse over a certain period of their employment, and other factors such as age and gender.

It is prudent to value defined benefit interests in superannuation, so that parties negotiating a property settlement have certainty about the value of superannuation interests.

Can superannuation be split by the Court?

The Court has the power to order that superannuation entitlements, and pensions, be split by a superannuation fund. Before the Court can order that a superannuation interest be split however, the Court must be satisfied that it is just and equitable for there to be an adjustment of the superannuation pool.

Superannuation can also be split by entering into a Superannuation Agreement or Binding Financial Agreement pursuant to the Family Law Act.

What is the effect of a superannuation splitting order?

A superannuation splitting order could provide for three different outcomes of a superannuation split:

1. To create a new membership with the superannuation fund for the incoming spouse, where the superannuation interest is held;

2. To rollover the superannuation interest into another fund; or

3. To payout the superannuation interest as a lump sum payment.

Superannuation splits must occur in accordance with the Rules of a superannuation fund. For example, some superannuation funds will not permit a non-member spouse to make employee or voluntary contributions to their superannuation fund, whereas the member spouse may be permitted to make those contributions to their own superannuation fund.

How is superannuation treated in a property settlement?

In most cases, a superannuation interest will be treated as a capitalised asset available for division in the property settlement.

This approach is not appropriate however in cases where a party has an entitlement to a non-commutable invalidity pension, which is a pension that is not able to be split. It is well-settled in case law that as such pensions are not able to be split, they should be treated as a permanent and ongoing financial resource available to a party as an ongoing income stream, as opposed as being treated as a capitalised asset which is available for division.

Superannuation splitting in family law matters is a highly specialised and technically complex area of law. You should seek specialist advice about superannuation splitting if you are considering it as part of a property settlement with a former spouse or as part of a pre-nuptial agreement, known as a Binding Financial Agreement.

If you are seeking advice in relation to property settlement matters, contact us to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online to make an appointment with one of our experienced family lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

Are you still in a de facto relationship if you’re not living together

Fairbairn v Radecki [2022] HCA 18

The 2022 High Court decision of Fairbairn v Radecki [2022] HCA 18 considers the meaning of “breakdown of a de facto relationship” as per s90SM of the Family Law act 1975.

The parties to the proceedings commenced a relationship in 2005. In 2010, they entered into a formal agreement to keep their assets separate, including that the de faction wife’s home was to remain her property. This was considered to be a fundamental feature of the parties’ relationship.

By mid-2017, the de factor wife was diagnosed with dementia. On the advice of her doctor, she executed and enduring power of attorney in favour of her children from a previous relationship. Shortly after, notwithstanding the wife’s diminished capacity, the de facto husband encouraged the wife to revoke the existing power of attorney, and a new power of attorney was made in favour of him and the wife’s brother. The husband also arranged the wife to execute a new will that was more favourable to him than the wife’s previous will.

In 2018, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘NCAT’) appointed the NSW Trustee and Guardian (‘the Trustee’) as the de facto wife’s guardian and financial manager. NCAT also revoked the power of attorney in favour of the de facto husband.

In March 2018, the wife was moved into an aged care home. The Trustee sought to sell the de facto wife’s home to cover the costs of her ongoing care, however this was opposed by the de facto husband. The Trustee subsequently made an application to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it was then known) seeking Orders for a property settlement.

The primary judge held that the parties’ de facto relationship had broken down by no later than 25 May 2018. The Court found that the de facto husband’s conduct during the demise of the wife’s mental state, was inconsistent with a “fundamental premise” of their relationship, being the strict separation of assets.

The de facto husband appealed the primary decision to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. The Full Court overturned the primary Judge’s decision, finding that there was no breakdown of the de facto  as the de facto husband’s conduct was not fundamentally inconsistent with a continuing de facto relationship.

The Trustee (on behalf of the de facto wife) appealed the Full Court’s decision, to the High Court. The Trustee attempted to argue that the parties’ relationship had broken down when the wife moved into an aged care home, arguing that de facto relationships break down when parties to the de facto relationship stop living together. This was rejected by the High Court. The Court held that the term “living together” means sharing a life together as a couple and must be “construed to take account of the many various ways in which two people may share their lives together in the modern world” [33].

Notwithstanding this, the High Court agreed with the primary judge’s finding that where one party to a de facto relationship acts fundamentally contrary to the interests of the other party in relation to the property of the couple, it is possible to conclude that the mutual commitment to a shared life has ended.

The Court noted that keeping their assets separate from one another was an “essential feature” of the parties’ relationship. By 2017, the de facto husband began to act as if he were no longer bound by this agreement. On this basis, the Court upheld the primary judge’s finding that the de facto relationship had broken down by no later than 25 May 2018.

Family law is complex and you should seek specialist advice if you, or a family member, find yourselves in a situation where you may benefit from advice about your entitlements, rights or responsibilities.

If you would like to discuss your matter and how we can assist you, contact us today on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online.

Author: Ellen Russell

International Prenuptial Agreements in Australia

A prenuptial agreement or Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) as they are known in Australia, is a document that sets out how your assets and liabilities will be divided in the event of a separation. A BFA can be entered into before, during or after a relationship.

Prenuptial agreements are common in many different countries and are tailored to the law of each country. If you entered into a prenuptial agreement overseas, you should be aware that it will not automatically be recognised if you are separating in Australia.

For a financial agreement to be binding in Australia, it must comply with the requirements of the Family Law Act 1975.

Part VIIA of the Family Law Act sets out the requirements of a BFA, including:

1. That the agreement be in writing and signed by both parties;

2. That each party obtain independent legal advice prior to signing the agreement;

3. That each party is provided with a signed statement by the legal practitioner who provided them with independent legal advice; and

4. That the signed statement is provided to the other party under the agreement.

Even if an agreement is binding in the country of origin, it may not be enforceable in Australia if it does not comply with the above requirements. In absence of an agreement, the division of property between married couples is governed by section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975, which takes into account the contributions and future needs of each party, among other things. You may wish to inform your lawyer or the Court that a prenuptial agreement exists, but the Court is not bound to follow the terms of the agreement. The Court may, however, take the agreement into account in determining whether orders are just and equitable.

If you would like the terms of your international agreement to apply in Australia, you should enter into a BFA that complies with Australian law. If you have assets overseas, or are a citizen of another country, it is also important to consider the laws of the respective countries to determine how those assets may be dealt with if you separate with your partner. You should obtain specialist family law advice to help you understand how the law applies to your situation.

If you would like to discuss your matter and how we can assist you, please contact us today on (02) 6225 7040 by email info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online.

Author: Amy Davis