Family law council



Download 0.49 Mb.
Page9/9
Date09.11.2016
Size0.49 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052.


161 Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052.

162 Re H (Children: Residence Order: Condition) [2001] 2 FLR 1277.

163 Per Ormrod LJ in Chamberlain v De La Mare (1983) 4 FLR 434.

164 R. Spon-Smith ‘Relocation revisited’ [2004] Family Law 191 at 193.

165 T. Sample and T. Reiger, ‘Relocation standards and constitutional considerations’ (1998) 15 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 229 at 229.

166 Swonder v Swonder 642 NE 2d 1376 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).

167 Ibid.

168 Ibid.

169 Tropea v Tropea 87 NY 2d 727.

170 Ibid.

171 Ibid.

172 Ibid.

173 Goertz v Gordon: Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund [1996] SCR 27.


174 Ibid at 340.

175 Ibid.

176 Ibid.

177 Ibid.

178 Ibid.

179 M. Kisthardt, ‘Perspectives on the relocation of children’ (1998) 15 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 1 at 1.

180 American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Model Relocation Act, as adopted by the board of Governors of the AAML, Cancun, Mexico, March 9, 1997, § 407.

181 Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:355.13.

182 E. Terry et al. ‘Relocation: moving forward or backward?’ (1998) 15 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 1 at 225–226.

183 Ibid.

184 Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:355.12.

185 D v S (2001) NZCA 374 at [47].

186 Stadniczenko v Stadniczenko [1995] NZFLR 493 at 500.


187 P. Boshier, ‘Relocation cases: an international view from the bench’ (2005) New Zealand Family Law Journal 77 (Lexisnexis electronic version – no page references).

188 Ibid.

189 W and R [2006] FamCA 25.

190 A. Worwood, ‘International relocation – the debate’ [2005] Family Law 62; A. Worwood, ‘International relocation of children – are our courts too mother-focussed?’ (2005) The Review 9.

191 W and R [2006] FamCA 25 at [342]–[346].

192 Submission from the Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia at 1.

193 Submission from Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at 2.

194 Submission from the Law Society of New South Wales at 3.

195 Submission from Relationships Australia at 1.

196 Submission from National Legal Aid at 3.

197 Submission from Ms Donna Cooper at 1.

198 As did the Dawn House Women and Children’s Shelter and a confidential submission.


199 Submission from Murray Mallee Community Legal Service at 4.

200 Submission from Women’s Legal Services Australia at 8. Guidelines are also supported by Mavis MacLean and Becky Batagol who made a submission to Council’s 2004 discussion paper on The ‘Child Paramountcy Principle’ in the Family Law Act.

201 This provision is extracted in full at paragraph 5.27 of this report.

202 Including the ACT Department of Education and Training, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Qld South) Ltd.

203 Submission from the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc) at 10.

204 The report is available on the Council’s website .

205 Submission from Shared Parenting Council of Australia at 24–25.

206 Submission from Ms Donna Cooper at 7.

207 Submission from Lone Fathers Association NT Inc at 9.

208 Submission from Family Services Australia at 6.

209 Submission from Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at 12–13. Family Services Australia also recommend a case-by-case approach in their submission, at 8.

210 Submission from National Legal Aid at 3.


211 Submission from National Legal Aid at 6.

212 Goertz v Gordon: Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund [1996] SCR27 at [44].

213 Submission from the Shared Parenting Council at 12.

214 Submission from the Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia at 16.

215 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 at 24.

216 Government Response to the Recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005, tabled in the House of Representatives on 8 December 2005, at 3–4. The response is available online at .

217 Submission from Women’s Legal Services Australia at 12; a confidential submission also opposed the recommendation.

218 Submission by ACT Law Society at 3.

219 For example, National Legal Aid and the Law Society of New South Wales.

220 Submission from the Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia at 12.

221 Submission from Ms Lisa Young at 7. This may be contrasted to the submission from Ms Donna Cooper, who considers that the principles in A v A will now have to be reinterpreted in light of the amendments contained in the Shared Parental Responsibility Act.


222 Submission from the ACT Department of Education and Training at 1.

223 Submission from Ms Donna Cooper at 5.

224 This case is discussed in paragraph 5.7 of this report.

225 For example, the submission from Murray Mallee Community Legal Service at 7; submission from Ms Donna Cooper; submission from Ms Joan Hopkins; submission from OzyDads; submission from Centacare Sydney; submission from Women’s Legal Services Australia; submission from the ACT Law Society; submission from Relationships Australia.

226 K. Yaeger, ‘An examination of relocation law in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island: successful trends toward determining the best interests of the child’ (2005) 10 Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy 153 at 172.

227 Submission from the Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia at 10.

228 Watts, above n 8 at 67–68.

229 J. Kelly & M. Lamb, ‘Developmental issues in relocation cases involving young children: when, whether and how?’ (2003) 17(2) Journal of Family Psychology 193.


230 Ibid at 194.

231 Ibid at 194.

232 Ibid at 194.

233 Ibid at 195.

234 Ibid at 195.

235 Ibid at 195.

236 U v U (2002) 191 ALR 289 at 324 [159].

237 Bolitho and Cohen (2005) FLC ¶93-224 at [72].

238 Family Law Council, The ‘Child Paramountcy Principle’ in the Family Law Act, December 2004, pp11–14.

239 Discussion paper pp14–16.

240 Discussion paper p17.

241 Discussion paper pp18–22.

242 CDJ v VAJ (1998) FLC 92-828.

243 B and B (Re Jurisdiction) (2004) 31 Fam LR 31.13.

244 Duroux v Martin (1993) 17 Fam LR, 17.130.


245 Paragraph 4.2 on page 30 of the discussion paper.

246 Northern Territory of Australia v GPAO [1999] HCA 8 (11 March 1999).




Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page