Author Archives: admin

How we Judge the Bias of Judges

on by

scales-of-justiceFairness and equity are central underpinnings of our justice system.

An extraordinary attempt by a Sydney man to disqualify a judge on the basis that she had feminist, left leaning views, has put the spotlight on the rules surrounding disqualification and bias of judges.

In short, the application from Tosson Mahmoud was rejected on numerous grounds. However, the decision by Justice Schmidt provides a useful illustration of the circumstances in which a judge can be removed from a case on the basis of bias.

However, the decision by Justice Schmidt provides a useful illustration of the circumstances in which a judge can be removed from a case on the basis of bias.

The oft quoted phrase “justice needs to be seen to be done” is encompassed by this rule.

Apprehended Bias

Case law from the High Court decision of Ebner requires a judge to be disqualified from hearing a certain case if a fair minded observer might apprehend that the judge would not be impartial.

Mr Mahmoud’s application relied on the fact that he founded a “genderism” movement that advocated women should not be in positions of power in society.

He further claimed that Justice Schmidt, as a woman, would be unfairly prejudicial towards him on the basis that his radical views threatened her position.

His application was rejected on numerous grounds.

First of all, the claimed notoriety of his “genderism” movement was never established.

As a result, his argument that an observer would recognise the conflict between his position and that of the judge was unfounded.

In any case, his argument further relied on two assumptions that at best were fallacious, and at worst discriminatory. As Justice Schmidt pointed out, his claim relied on an assumption that all female judges were necessarily feminist and left leaning, and conversely that any male judge would not share a similar view.

The court held that a fair minded observer would not agree with these propositions.

Actual Bias

A claim of actual bias is a more serious one, and as a result requires a higher standard of proof.

Mr Mahmoud’s case suffered from a lack of substantiated facts that he could point to: his claims regarding his radical views have already been discussed, and his further assertions of corruption in the Australian parliament and judiciary were unfounded.

It is important to note that claims of actual bias can be successful and are important to be discovered in any courtroom proceedings.

However, like all claims, they must be adequately substantiated with evidence.

Undoubtedly, judges are required to perform a difficult task.

On the one hand, they are required to uphold their oath of office and determine cases fairly and impartially. On the other hand, they are also human beings with their own personal views and opinions.

As a result, it is important that any claim of bias is substantiated and not based on mere suspicion. Such an argument is unlikely to pass the stringent tests required before a judge is disqualified.

Related Family Law Article

Paternity Testing – is it better to know?

on by

paternity-testingPaternity testing has long been perceived as upsetting, even traumatising or embittering– but as the technology becomes increasingly available in Australia, there may be real benefits to getting tested.

It has been claimed that as many as 30 percent of men mistakenly believe a child they are supporting is their biological offspring.

This type of situation is sometimes referred to as “paternity fraud” – which implies that the mother is aware of the identity of the child’s “real”, biological father, and that the man is a victim of a deliberate deception.

In some cases, the aggrieved man has successfully taken the mother to court and claimed financial compensation for the deception.

In 2001 Liam Magill successfully sued his ex-wife after paternity testing confirmed that he was not the biological father of two of the three children she had borne during their marriage.

The court ordered her to pay $70,000 to compensate him for the economic burden of supporting the two children and for the depression and anxiety he had suffered.

Although the decision to award compensation in the Magill case was finally overturned by the High Court in 2006, there have since been other reports of similar successes in court.

For example, News.com.au has reported that in 2011 a woman was ordered to pay $13,000 after a paternity test showed her ex-husband was not the father of her son.

Despite reports such as these, however, claims that paternity fraud is widespread seem mostly unfounded.

Professor Michael Gilding of the Swinburne University of Technology’s Institute for Social Research estimates that paternity is mis-attributed only in 1-3 percent of births.

Even so, it is often the mother who is unsure of the child’s paternity and who has requested testing, especially if the child was conceived during an unstable or disrupted period in a relationship.

Furthermore, Andrea Hayward, director of DNA QLD, says that in every five paternity tests they carry out in their facility, four have confirmed that there has been no mistake as to paternity.

But where there may be cause for doubt or concern, testing can bring certainty and relief to many families.

Equally however, the results of a paternity test have the potential to be used to create further acrimony between parents who other other children in common. Positive proof of mis-attributed paternity with one child may hurt future cooperation between the parents, especially in relation to their other children.

In that light, paternity testing is a controversial test that on the one hand is seen as being detrimental to the child, especially if mis-appropriated paternity is confirmed, but on the other hand is seen as a natural right of both the child and the father, to know the biological truth that underlies their family bond.

Related Family Law Judgments

Dirty texts leads to Jail for Sydney pool cleaner

on by
Sexting

Using a carriage service to harass or offend

In one of the first legal cases in Australia involving the social phenomenon of ‘sexting’, a Sydney pool cleaner appeared in court facing multiple harassment charges after sending explicit text messages, photographs and videos to eight Sydney women.

Having initially been sentenced to at least 3 years imprisonment by a magistrate, the District Court has shaved 16 months off this sentence.

Peter Lewis Sheather, 41, appeared in Downing Centre Local Court after being charged with nine counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend.

The offence can lead to a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment.

At trial, it was revealed that the victims were customers of two pool maintenance firms, where Mr Sheather worked as a pool cleaner.

Mr Sheather exploited his occupation to source intimate details about each woman and their backyard pools, including their mobile numbers.

Mr Sheather then used an IPhone, which he had obtained under a false name, to send sexually explicit messages to his victims.

His messages ranged from telling each victim that he wished to have intercourse with them and acknowledging them by their first name, to sending graphic videos involving sexual acts.

Mr Sheather was unknown to each woman when the messages were sent.

When a victim warned Mr Sheather that she would report him to the police, he replied, “You don’t even know who it is”.

The majority of the offences originated from Bellevue Hill and Paddington between March and April 2014.

NSW Police raided Mr Sheather’s Cammeray residence on April 24 and seized mobile phones, laptops and documents as evidence. He was arrested that day and granted bail.

In the initial trial, Magistrate Roger Prowse described Mr Sheather as depraved.

“If you had to look up the word depraved, you would find an entry: Peter Sheather”, the magistrate stated.

Furthermore, Mr Prowse noted that Sheather had a “hideous” record of offending and had little prospect of rehabilitation.

Mr Sheather had previously been jailed for 18 months after pleading guilty to almost 100 counts of menacing women, only approximately seven months after he had served a jail term for similar offences in 2001.

As a result, Mr Prowse criticised Mr Sheather heavily, describing him as a person who deserved nothing less than a jail sentence for harassing his victims.

“It’s a bad judgment call that the appellant has made on repeated occasions,” he added.

Peter-Lewis-Sheather

Peter Lewis Sheather

Mr Sheather was also denied a defence application by Mr Prowse during proceedings.

This was to be used to have the sentencing adjourned pending a psychological evaluation.

The court heard that Mr Sheather had sought treatment for depression and had a disadvantaged childhood marred by sexual abuse.

However, Mr Prowse responded by stating “depression does not equal depravity”.

“Just imagine the outrage of the victims if he wasn’t jailed.”

However, Mr Sheather had his sentence reduced by 16 months on appeal to the District Court.

Judge Michael King noted that the magistrate who originally sentenced Mr Sheather mistakenly handed down a total jail term which was more than what was available to the Local Court.

“It’s not uncommon for magistrates dealing with lengthy lists of matters before them to make such errors,” he told the District Court on Friday.

However, Judge King did not accept the defence’s argument that “snide remarks” for passers-by aimed at Mr Sheather served as a form of punishment.

“The community is entitled to know … the appalling behaviour of Mr Sheather and entitled, if they should remember it, to be able to recognise him,” Judge King stated.

As a consequence, Mr Sheather is eligible for release in March 2016.

The Struggle for Self Represented Divorcees

on by

just-divorcedDealing with a divorce is never easy – especially when the struggle is not only against your partner, but also navigating the legal system.

Unfortunately, this is the situation that so many divorcees find themselves in.

With many family solicitors charging up to (and sometimes even over) $600 an hour, self representation in court often seems like a much cheaper and acceptable solution.

However, this path is also fraught with challenges. Chief amongst them is the legal system which often is confusing to people who do not have experience in dealing with it.

Family lawyer Robert Larkins can recount cases where self represented litigants were unsure about how to cross-examine, negotiate with a lawyer or draft affidavits. In addition to this is the often overwhelming experience of standing up in court to present one’s case.

It is no wonder then that self represented litigants find themselves in such a tough position if they do decide to self represent.

On top of all the legal issues associated with self representation, there are also personal ones too: a protracted divorce period, emotional strain on any children involved and a “win at all costs” mentality that tends to bring out the worst in people.

The easiest way to avoid this situation is to settle outside of court, with many agreements being reached for under $1,000.

Research from the Australian Institute of Family Studies suggests that 43% of separating couples were able to devise a settlement within a year of their relationship dissolving.

This suggests that reaching an agreeable solution is possible, and indeed something that divorcees should strive for.

100% plagiarism Free badgeMediation between both parties is often a useful avenue to explore, with many lawyers or organisations such as Relationships Australia offering these services.

The key point to remember in any negotiation, says Robert Larkins, is that an irrational approach where expensive legal battles are had over “the principle” and in place of any firm financial sense are rarely successful.

In spite of this, around 30% of divorce cases involve at least one self represented party. If mediation, settlement and all other avenues fail for those in this unenviable solution, then some advice includes:

  1. Access guides produced by the Family Court. These include advice on how to appear in court, basic explanation of procedure, online brochures and fact sheets.
  2. Consult guides written by experienced lawyers, such as “Breaking Up – A Self Help Guide to the Courts and the Law” by Robert Larkins, or factsheets from Family Law Express.
  3. Contact sources of free legal support such as community legal centres or Legal Aid.
  4. Continually be open to the option of settling out of court to avoid continuing an already drawn out process.
  5. Above all though, court divorce cases should be a last resort, especially if legal representation is not an option.

Lawyers vs Personal Will Kits – Which is Best?

on by

Lawyers vs Personal Will Kits – Which is Best?Do-it-yourself Will Kits have become increasingly popular over the last few years, and can present a less expensive alternative to hiring a Lawyer to draft your will for you.

In simple wills where there is unlikely to be any contention between the beneficiaries, will kits can provide a simple method of putting your affairs in order.

However, leading experts such as Troy Palmer, an accredited specialists in wills and estates and national manager for estate planning at National Australia Trustees, have warned that there are still many potential pitfalls in taking the cheaper option, even when things seem simple enough to handle yourself.

“There’s no substitute for proper advice from a qualified lawyer, no matter how straightforward you think your affairs are,” said Palmer.

There are many specific requirements at law that can make the execution of a will run more smoothly, and which are easily overlooked without a trained professional.

Superannuation, for example, many not necessarily be covered by a broadly-phrased will, as certain technicalities apply. Lawyers can generally phrase a will with much less ambiguity, and avoid any confusion down the line.

Similarly, it can be difficult to exclude people from the will who might have a claim on your estate under family provision laws. A lawyer can advise you on the proper language and reasoning that needs to be included.

Having a lawyer supervising the drafting of the will can also reduce the risk of it being challenged on the grounds of your capacity. Claims that you have been pressured into drafting a will, or that you did not understand the process, are more difficult to establish if a qualified solicitor has been overseeing the process. You can also be reassured that the signing and witnessing of the will has been performed correctly.

A lawyer can give direct advice over whom to appoint as executor of the will, help arrange suitable trustees if required, and advice on tax implications for your beneficiaries.

It may be worth hiring a legal expert if any of these issues are of concern to you.

100% plagiarism Free badgeWill kits can still be appropriate, however, if your estate is very straightforward – for example, if you have few assets and only a single beneficiary.

As a further alternative, the NSW Trustee and Guardian, operated by the NSW Government, can provide instruction in drafting your will. Appointments can be made via their website at http://www.tag.nsw.gov.au/make-a-will.html.

Be sure to consider all your options when it comes time to draft your will.

Grandpa’s ‘romance’ to Young Woman was Marriage Fraud, Court finds

on by

Marriage and Mental CapacityIn a recent decision, Justice Garry Foster was asked to declare a rather peculiar marriage void between a 78-year-old grandfather and sufferer of dementia (Mr Oliver)*and his 49-year-old former cleaner (Mrs Oliver)*, following an application to the Family Court of Australia by Mr Oliver’s granddaughter.

Mr and Mrs Oliver tied the knot in April 2011; the eccentricity of their union underpinned by the absence of Mr Oliver’s family on the guest list.

Mrs Oliver, who at the time worked for Mr Oliver and his late wife who passed away in 2010, had remarkably decided not to inform the groom’s family that the wedding ceremony’s date was to be changed from June to April 2011.

More commonly cases involving grounds for decree of nullity as espoused in section 1 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) include either party being lawfully married to another person at the time of marriage.

However there have in fact been only 2 other reported decisions in which a marriage was requested to be nullified owing to the mental incapacity of one of the parties.

Just prior to the wedding, Mr Oliver perplexingly asserted to his grandson that he did not even realize he had a girlfriend or fiancé, while he regularly consumed Bonox and rum for breakfast.

Four months down the road, Mr Oliver was admitted to a nursing home, diagnosed as suffering from an extensive array of health issues including dementia and cognitive impairment, before passing away in September 2013, three months before the case was heard.

In spite of Mrs Oliver’s claims that it was her profound love for Mr Oliver that instigated the marriage, Mr Oliver was known to talk about his late ex-wife at length as if she were still alive.

In court, key evidence of the couple requesting a modification to Mr Oliver’s will to leave Mrs Oliver with all his material possessions, Mrs Oliver’s apparent absence at the nursing home where her husband resided, and of her frequent withdrawals from his bank account in her endeavour to bridge the financial gap between her and Mr Oliver, likely suggested a void marriage.

These revelations were further supported by Mrs Oliver’s failure to call upon any witnesses, including the solicitor who modified Mr Oliver’s will, and the wedding photographer, both of whom could have testified that Mr Oliver possessed the mental capacity to make autonomous decisions to enter a marriage.

Moreover, the retraction of an assessment expounding upon the mental capability and rationality of Mr Oliver by his general practitioner coupled with reservations Justice Foster harboured over Mrs Oliver’s evidence severely debilitated her case.

This resulted in Justice Foster concluding that Mr Oliver was “mentally incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony”, pursuant to section23B(1)(d)(iii) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).

This conclusion was arrived at predominantly due to Mrs Oliver’s fiscal incentives and Mr Oliver’s dementia.

Related Family Law Judgments

Telstra delivers on New Domestic Violence Leave policy

on by

telstra logoTelstra will give staff who are victims of domestic violence an extra 10 days of paid leave a year, a decision likely to help a union-led campaign to force all employers to offer similar provisions.

One of the nation’s largest ­private employers, with 34,000 staff, Telstra says the leave policy is ­in ­keeping with its strong commitment to safety, ­workplace flexibility and ­gender equality.

Telstra’s chief talent officer, ­Katherine Paroz, said the leave would be available to full-time employees for medical appointments, legal advice or counselling.

“This is a legitimate form of leave and as an iconic Australian organisation we see it as important that we have a prominent role in tackling violence against women,” she said. “We want our people to have long careers with us, to trust us and respect us as an employer.”

The leave policy, launched on November 24 last year to coincide with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, will allow full-time employees to attend medical appointments or seek legal advice or counselling.

“The purpose of our new domestic and family violence policy is to provide support to employees and manager of employees who may be experiencing the effects of family and domestic violence,” said Troy Roderick, the general manager of diversity and inclusion at Telstra.

Two out of three women who report violence by a current partner are in paid employment and violence against women and children costs the ­economy $13.6 billion a year.

Telstra joins airline Virgin Australia, some banks and public sector ­organisations, such as universities, in providing domestic violence leave.

Campaigns addressing violence against women and within families­ have risen in prominence in recent years.

A speech condemning bystanders of sexual violence made by the Chief of the Army, David Morrison, went viral in 2013, while Rosie Batty, whose son was murdered by his father at cricket ­practice, has done much to draw ­attention to domestic violence.

Around 1.6 million workers have access to domestic violence leave because, through enterprise ­bargaining, it has been included in the agreement that sets down their wages and conditions.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has launched an ambitious bid to have domestic violence leave entitlements written into every ­modern award, which would extend the provision to another 1.5 million mostly low-paid workers.

White Ribbon Foundation chief executive Libby Davies said domestic violence was an employment issue because the victims and perpetrators were found in workplaces.

“Workplaces are just as much party of society [as home life] so to drive real and lasting and sustainable change, workplaces must be a part of the process,” she said.

“Workplaces benefit from being involved. We’ve seen evidence it improves productivity, reduces absenteeism, improves retention rates and change staff attitudes and behaviours.”

White Ribbon is ramping up a workplace accreditation program. This year there will be 90 organisations going through the accreditation process, which takes 18 months and involves developing policies, meeting standards and educating staff.

Applications have mostly come from large government and non-profit organisations and unions, but companies are increasingly showing an interest, according to Ms Davies.

“There are some companies who have their head in the sand around this,” she said. “But I think the social and economic pressures are ­mounting and those companies will be drawn into the fold.”

Indeed, the ACTU has made a ­submission to the Fair Work ­Commission’s review of modern awards seeking 10 days’ paid domestic violence leave for permanent staff and 10 days’ unpaid leave for casuals.

ACTU president Ged Kearney said Telstra’s announcement lent weight to the bid. “This is a breakthrough into the corporate sector and ­hopefully it will set a trend,” she said.

“We know that one in three ­Australian women ­experience ­physical or sexual ­violence by an ­intimate partner and that it is not ­isolated to particular postcodes. ­Having an understanding employer actually helps women come through the abusive situation much better off.

“On the employer side, the ­corporate sector must understand the costs associated with losing good employees. Often helping women through this situation means they are holding on to a very good employee.”

The Communication Workers Union applauded Telstra’s move but said because the leave was provided for by policy, rather than being part of an award or enterprise agreement, the entitlement was not enforceable.

As such, the amount of leave an employee received would be at the discretion of management.

National Australia Bank ­introduced a domestic violence ­support policy in June 2013, which includes additional leave ­and counselling.

Last January, Virgin Australia reached an agreement with the Transport Workers Union to ­provide five days of domestic ­violence leave per year.

A spokesperson for Origin Energy said employees who are exposed to domestic violence or are supporting family members in such circumstances get flexible working arrangements and compassionate leave.

At BHP Billiton, managers may apply their personal discretion on matters of domestic violence to apply personal leave.

QBE offers four days of flexible leave, in additional to personal leave, that may be used in such circumstances, and may consider implementing a separate policy related to domestic violence in the future.

CSL offers an additional five days of personal leave to the industry ­standard and have stated a ­separate domestic violence leave ­policy will be a considered in an coming ­leadership discussions.

Telstra’s domestic violence leave policy is only one recent development amongst a longer, far-reaching commitment to this area of employee welfare, said Troy Roderick. 

“We’ve been working on the issue of men’s violence against women since 2009 and evolved our approach since then. The prevention data showed that we had both survivors and perpetrators in the Telstra family, among staff and customers, and that we had a vital role to play in raising awareness and prevention,” Roderick says.

Telsta has a proud history of demonstrating its support for employees who are victims of domestic abuse, where in 2013 it announced it would offer silent phone numbers to domestic violence victims free of charge. Normally, a fee is attached to requesting a silent number for Telsta customers, however the provider has committed to waiving this fee for victims of abuse in the interests of protecting their safety. 

Telstra recognised the role it could play in the fight against domestic violence again last year, when it announced it would donate 5000 smart phones, each equipped with $30 credit, to domestic violence shelters across Australia. Given that many perpetrators of domestic violence use mobile phones to trace or attack their partners, Telstra donated the phones to allow victims access to a safe and protected phone line to seek help. 

Government spends $500,000 fighting $6000 child support dispute

on by

nick-xenophonThe Department of Human Services has spent more than half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money in legal fees fighting a child support dispute over $6000.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says the case is a “scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money … to protect the butt of the department”.

Now the department, which runs the Child Support Agency, Centrelink and Medicare, has hired more high-end lawyers to try to block the release of information on its own conduct in the matter, exposing taxpayers to up to a million dollars in legal and other costs.

Child Support Agency bosses have spent the money despite knowing, since August 2011, that their public servants broke the law in the man’s case and were on shaky legal ground from the beginning of the dispute.

DHS has been ordered by the government’s information watchdog to hand over a briefing it prepared for its minister, along with other documents, but the department has hired top-end lawyers Clayton Utz to fight the decision of the Australian Privacy Commissioner.

Throughout the three-year legal battle with the father, a determined litigant known simply as “DT” because of strict Family Court rules on identifying parties, Human Services have tried to resist handing over documents to the court and defied orders to release information to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

Transparency and accountability at Human Services, the government’s largest department, has been under fire since a report by the Information Commissioner revealed an organisation obsessed with process, that preferred legalese to plain English and had increasingly lost sight of its duty to share information.

The report shows that full freedom of information disclosures at the Department of Human Services have halved over the past three years. It also identified “negative trends” in DHS processing of FOI requests between 2011-12 and 2013-14.

During that period, the department increased its use of the “practical refusal” mechanism in the FOI Act from 33 to 777 occasions. There was also a decline in the number of FOI requests to which access to documents was given in full, from 58% to 26% of requests.

And the report identified an increase in the number of applications for Information Commissioner review of the department’s access refusal decisions, from 49 IC review applications in 2011–12 to 95 in 2013–14.

Human Services receives more FOI requests than any agency aside from than the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

As of April this year, DHS had paid more than $500,000 to defend the DT case and refuses to say what has been spent since.

New South Wales Labor Senator Doug Cameron has slammed the secrecy of the department. “The command-and-control structure in DHS, in my view, is just crazy,” Cameron said.

“You ask questions at [Senate] estimates and obviously lots come back trying to avoid the question but that’s not something new to the public service. But I did ask a question on the computer system and a complete cloak of silence was thrown over the issue. I was told I would get a briefing and when the briefing came they told me they couldn’t tell me anything.”

Cameron has urged Human Services Minister Marise Payne to play a more active role in developing a culture of transparency at the department.

The department refused this week to say how much taxpayers’ money was being paid to Clayton Utz for the latest legal manoeuvre but a spokeswoman insisted the department was justified in another round of legal action to keep documents suppressed.

“Matters are generally appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the decision being appealed contains an error of fact or an error of law,” the spokesman said.

“As this matter is subject to ongoing litigation, the department will not be providing further comment at this time.”

Senator Xenophon has been trying to use Senate estimates to get answers on the spending on the case, but his questions have been taken on notice, with Human Services then refusing to answer, citing “confidentiality”.

“This is bureaucracy gone mad and now they’re refusing to answer how much has been involved,” Senator Xenophon said.

“Taxpayers should expect a better response than this, they are hiding behind confidentiality and it seems a cowardly way to avoid accountability.

“This seems to be a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money for no good effect other than to protect the butt of the department.”

Financial Advice: Where to get it for Free

on by

free-financial-adviceFinancial advice doesn’t have to cost you a fortune. In fact, much of it is free if you know where to look.

Be aware of the free options before you fork out hundreds or thousands of dollars for advice on budgeting, property, investment, superannuation or estate planning, but remember that in many cases you get what you pay for.

A financial planner might charge an hourly rate of $220, an accountant anything from $200 and a solicitor $250 an hour or more, so you’ll want their words to be worthwhile.

Here are some sources of advice that won’t cost you a cent.

Financial Counsellors

If you have money problems, you can speak to a financial counsellor for free. Financial Counselling Australia says these qualified professionals work within community organisations and provide “non-judgmental information, support and advocacy”. Telephone 1800 007 007.

The Internet

Most financial services companies’ websites are packed with free information to help you make money decisions.

“Everything you need to know these days is on the internet, but there’s also a lot of bad information on the internet so it pays to be quite diligent,” says Mortgage Choice spokeswoman Jessica Darnbrough.

Valuable sites include moneysmart.gov.au and comparison websites such as mozo.com.au packed with financial guides and calculators.

Property

Mortgage brokers do not charge their clients for advice about getting a home loan, saving for a deposit, property investment steps to take, rental yields and suburb information, or even how to make yourself look good on paper for a lender.

“When applying for a loan you need the best possible credit history to get the biggest discount open to you,” Darnbrough says.

Financial Planners

An initial meeting with a financial planner won’t cost you anything, may contain some free general tips and should give you an idea of how you can benefit from more detailed paid advice.

AMP financial planner Mark Borg says anyone trying to make complex financial decisions without professional help may be compromised by their personal experiences and not be open-minded.

“The first problem with going it alone is you don’t know what you don’t now,” says Borg, principal of MBA Financial Strategists.

Sometimes some “cold-hearted” professional advice is what you need, he says.

Family and Friends

The best source of free advice can be those closest to you, but always remember that their situation is different to yours so copying them completely probably won’t work.

Family and friends can give you recommendations about experts they have dealt with, or share lessons they have learned from their own financial experiences.

Money should not be a taboo subject.

Seminars

Free financial seminars offered by financial planners, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, law firms, super funds and government bodies such as Centrelink and Defence Housing Australia.

“You just have to open your eyes to the community announcements,” Darnbrough says.

But beware of property spruikers trying to flog a product. Just like the internet, you’ll have to sort out the useful information from the slick marketing spiels.

If there’s one thing you do this week it’s…

Start a savings plan.

To Do

Check out the best savings accounts on the market at comparison site Mozo.

Work out how much money you can afford to put away and not touch each week.

Set a savings goal for the next 12 months and check your progress each month.

The Savings

UBank USaver $50 a week + interest rate 4.02 per cent = $2661 in 12 months (if you also have a transaction account with the bank)

Save $100 a week in the same account = $5322 after 12 months.

Mother Loses Custody After Preventing Father Seeing Child

on by

court judgment

Selfish separated parents who try to stop their children having a relationship with their former partners are having the kids taken off them by courts.

See Ridgely & Stiller [2014] FCCA 2668

A judge recently took the “drastic step” of ordering that a girl, eight, who had lived with her mother since her parents separated when she was 13 months, instead live with her father.

Changing the child’s primary carer from the mother to the father was the only way the girl could have a meaningful relationship with both parents, Judge Evelyn Bender decided.

The mother had for years interfered with her daughter’s court-ordered time with her father, who did not see his child for months at a time.

“The mother tells (the child) that her father is going to take her away and not allow her to ever see her mother again,” Judge Bender said.

The anxious little girl had told a Court family consultant it was her dream to be able to “love Mummy and Daddy at the same time”.

Brisbane family law specialist Deborah Awyzio said it was only in extreme cases that a child was taken away from one parent and put in the care of the other.

“This is a warning that parents need to be child-focused in every parenting decision they make and not self-focused,” Ms Awyzio said.

“People think it is extreme when a child is removed from the carer they have been with, but the focus is on the child’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.”

In the recent case the court heard the couple, who separated in 2007 after five years together, had been in ongoing litigation over their daughter’s living arrangements.

The court heard the mother’s unremitting campaign to undermine her child’s relationship with her father distressed the child, who loved both parents.

Judge Bender said if the girl lived with her father she would be “allowed to be a child”.

She gave the father sole responsibility for the child’s health and education and allowed the mother to spend time with the girl on alternate weeks and during holidays.

Related Family Law Judgments