Author Archives: admin

Bob Hawke’s Will To Be Legally Challenged By His Daughter

on by

Bob-Hawkes-daughter-to-dispute-WillA legal brawl appears to be brewing between the daughter of former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and his widow.

Rosslyn Dillon, Mr Hawke’s youngest daughter, has engaged lawyers to fight Blanche d’Alpuget over the division of his multimillion-dollar will, according to a report in The New Daily.

The website claims Ms Dillon and her two siblings, Sue Pieters-Hawke and Stephen Hawke, each received a payment of $750,000 in the days following their father’s death in May.

Ms d’Alpuget’s son, the artist Louis Pratt, also received the payment,

But Ms Dillon’s discovery that the remainder of Mr Hawke’s vast estate will go to his second wife has reportedly caused anger.

She has engaged the family law firm Tiyce & Lawyers with the intention of contesting the will, on the grounds that it provides inadequate family provisions, The New Daily reports.

Should she and Ms d’Alpuget be unable to reach an agreement, the matter could head to the New South Wales Supreme Court.

Following his time in politics, Mr Hawke was successful in business and his Sydney home in Northbridge was recently sold for $15 million.

Mr Hawke, Labor’s longest-serving PM, died on May 16 at the age of 89, just days before the federal election.

Mr Hawke married Ms d’Alpuget, his biographer with whom he’d had a relationship for some time, in 1995 after splitting from his first wife, Hazel.

Related Family Law Judgments

In Case I Unexpectedly Die – See My Fearless Last Wishes

on by
fearless-folder

The Fearless Folder in ‘The Barefoot Investor for Families’ book by Australian author Scott Pape

Scott Pape from the Barefoot Investor has suggested that we all prepare a ‘fearless folder‘ in the event of our untimely death, so that our family will know all our expectations and social media details not found in a traditional Will.

Deidre, from Victoria, said she decided to put together a fireproof safe after a wrist injury left her unable to work, forcing her husband to take time off to look after their five young sons – all aged under six – while she recovered.

Her wrist has since healed and she has returned to work, but Deidre said she couldn’t help but wonder what would actually happen to her family if she wasn’t there.

So as suggested in the Barefoot Investor’s Barefoot Families book, she prepared a safe, which includes documents and her ‘fearless answers’ to a series of ‘important questions that would be asked’ if she were to die.

‘It’s about preparing for the worst so your family is financially protected. You can be perfectly healthy one minute, then be incapacitated the next,’ she said in “Mums Who Budget & Save.“

“Last year I had a fall where I broke my wrist. I slipped on water on the bathroom floor and landed hard enough on it to need surgery and a plate to repair it. I am fine now, and was very lucky I didn’t bang my head, but it hit home how quickly things can change.

‘This begs the question, what happens to my family if something serious were to happen to me? In the case of my broken wrist, our income was seriously impacted as my husband had to take time off work to look after the kids, fortunately only for a fairly short period of time while my wrist healed.”

Deidre – who has five young boys, including two sets of twins – said she’s the ‘main breadwinner’ in her family.

“So if I were to be seriously injured or die suddenly, my family would be put in a very bad position, so it is very important that I be prepared,” she said.

She used a checklist from “The Barefoot Investor for Families” book by Australian author Scott Pape, to help her compile everything her husband and children needed.

Using a $79 waterproof, fireproof safe from Bunnings Warehouse, Deidre put together a folder of important documents and instructions for her family.

“I’m the main financial organiser in my family, if anything happened to me, figuring out all this stuff would be very tough for my husband, and sorting out a financial nightmare is the last thing a grieving person needs,” she said.

The “fearless answers” include “who will raise our kids if we both die?”, “at what age should the kids receive inheritance” and “what are my funeral wishes”.

Inside the safe, she added both her and husband’s wills, power of attorney, birth certificates, marriage certificate, passports and property paperwork.

She also included instructions for her funeral, such as the kind of memorial she wanted and details of her executor, accountant, lawyer and financial planner.

Deidre also put together the “big list”, which includes all her social media, super, banking accounts, and login details.

She included her net worth – a list of all assets and liabilities and details about her life insurance policy and income protection.

“I’ve made sure I’m insured for a large amount as I have a big family of young children to support. I have my husband as my binding death nomination on my super and he has me as his. You have to specifically ask for this,” she said.

The mother said she also wrote small letters to her husband and five sons.

“Just in case my death was sudden, so I have a chance to tell them how much I love them and how special they are to me,” she said.

Since organising her ‘fearless folder’, Deidre said she feels rest assured her family will be taken care of if she were to suffer an injury or die.

“This is probably the most important thing I’ve ever organised, I feel a sense of relief that this is done so my family is taken care of. I thought I’d share with others as it’s such a brilliant idea, every family needs to do this to protect their loved ones,” she said.

Free Sample Wills & Testaments

  1. John Citizen – Slater and Gordon Sample Will
  2. My Last Will
  3. Mary Citizen Sample Will
  4. Summary of Will. Married or De facto with no Children
  5. Slater and Gordon Sample Will
  6. Basic Sample Will

Related Family Law Judgments

Euthanasia becomes legal in Victoria

on by
troy-thornton-euthanasa

Victorian firefighter Troy Thornton died in a Swiss euthanasia clinic earlier this year. Pictured with his wife Christine. Picture: AAP/SuppliedSource:AAP

It’s been almost four months since Christine Thornton lay beside her husband and whispered into his ear as he died in a Swiss euthanasia clinic.

It was a good death, the kind the couple had so desperately wanted. Peaceful. Dignified. Full of love.

Christine, who has shared her story to coincide with the start of Victoria’s assisted dying laws today, knew that Troy would still be able to hear her for about two minutes after the drugs began flooding his body.

“To me, that was peace of mind and I just made sure I said everything I could possibly think of to say,” the Victorian office manager and mother-of-two told AAP this week.

“I told him how much I loved him, and how I would make sure the kids would never forget him, that they would know how special they were to him.”

Staff had been asked to gently touch Christie on the head when they were certain Troy was gone but when that moment arrived, she knew instinctively.

“You can feel the difference. I felt it. He was no longer there. It was the shell.”

Soon afterwards, Christine was on a plane with Troy’s ashes, bound for their home state of Victoria and a sad reunion with their children Jack, 17 and Laura, 14.

Months down the track, Christine is frank about the aftermath of euthanasia and says it’s perhaps not what some might imagine.

She says there’s been no second guessing Troy’s decision to die. But there has been a profound sense of comfort in the end of his suffering and the good nature of his death.

“I’m not questioning myself about whether it was the right thing. I know exactly how he was feeling,” Christine said.

“He was scared of what was coming (from his disease), and it was coming over the hill very quickly.

“I’m at peace that I was able to fulfil Troy’s wishes. We had so many conversations about it, over so long. His whole thing was having the right to chose a good death over a bad one. To have dignity. He got that.”

Troy, a veteran Victorian firefighter, was just 54 when he opted to die quickly, by lethal injection, rather than slowly from multiple system atrophy, an incurable and untreatable disease.

If the disease is allowed to run its course, sufferers are reduced to a vegetative state, and can often die choking on their own mucous as crucial functions like swallowing become impossible.

Christine says she and her children are grateful that Troy was able to avoid a death like that.

“They are doing okay. Again, I think it’s the peace that comes with knowing their dad’s not suffering anymore.

“We had so many conversations leading up to this, we had family holidays, we spent so much time together and we were very open – always talking about it, checking in with each other to make sure we were all okay.”

Troy’s decision to die was driven by fear about the end stages of his disease. But Christine says it was also about his role as family protector.

“The kids, they’ve seen and experienced things that kids shouldn’t have to,” she said.

In the days before they flew to Switzerland, Troy choked to the point of unconsciousness, with his family around him.

“He stopped breathing for two minutes. He was worried that if that had happened when we were not home, we could have found him choked to death,” Christine said.

“He just said I know I’m doing the right thing. I can’t be found like this.”

Christine says Troy would be happy that Victoria has become the first jurisdiction in Australia to allow euthanasia in more than two decades.

The laws were too narrow to help him, because he could not find two doctors who would say with certainty that his degenerative disease would kill him within 12 months.

But Christine is adamant that the Victorian legislation must be the start, and not the end, of a public conversation about the lack of end-of-life choices in Australia.

“Troy never thought the first laws would help everyone, but it’s a start,” she said.

“People who don’t believe in euthanasia will never have to choose it. But shouldn’t that option be there for people who do want a choice, who do want a good death.”

As of today, terminally-ill Victorians can now legally ask their doctor for lethal drugs to take their own lives under the nation’s only euthanasia laws.

The state’s voluntary assisted dying scheme is expected to be used by about 150 people annually.

Under the scheme, terminally-ill Victorian adults in intolerable pain and with less than six months to live, or 12 months for neurodegenerative diseases, and who meet 68 safeguards can request their doctor’s help in dying.

But while the laws are now in action, even if someone starts the process today it will take at least 10 days to be completed.

It’s been 18 months since the Victorian parliament narrowly passed the laws during marathon sittings in 2017.

Since then a taskforce has been in charge of establishing how the system will work.

An independent review board and the coroner will keep track and monitor all deaths under the scheme.

BACKLASH TO DIVISIVE LAWS

While the laws have a large amount of support, critics remain, and on Tuesday evening about 50 pro-life activists, including children, took their protest to steps of Parliament House for a candlelit vigil.

The Government anticipates up to 150 people a year will use the scheme.

The laws have been highly divisive.

A woman whose terminally ill husband lobbied hard for assisted dying to be legalised in Victoria is among those “over the moon” the controversial laws have come into effect.

Former Shell Coles Express managing director Peter Short, 57, died in 2014 in palliative care after being given terminal sedation for oesophageal cancer.

The Melbourne man had campaigned hard for the laws.

“I’m over the moon, and it makes me sad to think that Pete is not around to see it, but for everybody else, it’s a great step forward,” his wife Elizabeth Short told 3AW radio.

Mrs Short said Peter was given Nembutal, known as the “peaceful pill”, but in the end chose palliation in hospital.

“He had the choice to end his own life or to choose the route he ended up doing, but it was the greatest gift anybody could have given for him,” she said.

She added people needed to understand terminal sedation already “happens all the time without regulation”.

Go Gentle director Andrew Denton said by putting in place safe and workable assisted dying laws, Victoria had done what no other Australian state was willing to.

“The Victorian voluntary assisted dying law has set the benchmark for how public policy should be designed and implemented in this country,” he said.

“The question now is not if but when other states will follow Victoria’s compassionate lead.”

Catholic bishops issued a last-ditch warning against the contentious laws, with a letter signed by four Victorian bishops warning of a “new and deeply troubling chapter of healthcare”.

“We cannot co-operate with the facilitation of suicide even when it seems motivated by empathy or kindness,” the letter signed by the Melbourne, Ballarat, Sale and Sandhurst bishops said.

Just hours before the new laws came into effect, about 50 protesters with Pro-Life Victoria took to the steps of Victoria’s Parliament House, objecting to the scheme.

“This legislation is coming into effect despite widespread opposition within the medical community,” Pro-life Victoria president Denise Cameron, a former nurse, said.

VICTORIA’S VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING LAWS

WHO CAN APPLY?

• Adults with a progressive, advanced terminal illness and less than six months to live or within 12 months for neurodegenerative diseases

• Suffering must be deemed “intolerable”

• They must be of sound mind

• Must have lived in Victoria for at least 12 months and be an Australian citizen or permanent resident

HOW WILL IT WORK?

• Patients must make three, clear requests

• Patients must initiate discussion of assisted dying and no one else

• They will be assessed by two experienced doctors, including at least one specialist

• Those approved will be granted permits for lethal medications, which must be self-administered

• A permit will be given for doctors to administer medication only where the patient is physically unable

• Only chemists at The Alfred Hospital will be able to prepare the medication

• Doctors do not have to be present when patients administer medication

• The process to apply and receive medication will take at least 10 days

• Unused lethal medication must be returned within 15 days of death

• The Department of Health and Human Services will approve applications

• An independent review board will oversee each step of the process

• Death certificates will record “voluntary assisted dying”

• The coroner must be notified of assisted dying deaths

PENALTIES FOR MISUSE

• If someone breaches the self-administration permit, they face potential life imprisonment

• Anyone who induces a person to request assisted dying faces up to five years jail and substantial fines

• Doctors who suggest the assisted dying scheme to patients face a professional misconduct investigation

Source: Victorian Government

Related Family Law Judgments

High Court agrees sperm donor is father as he was involved in girl’s life

on by

sperm donor is a fatherIn the decision: Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21, the High Court has found a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian friend to have a child is the father, due to his involvement in the child’s life.

A majority of the bench of the court on Wednesday handed down its decision in the case, which centred on whether state or Commonwealth laws should apply in the case and how they should be defined.

Lawyers for the donor, Robert Masson – the man’s court pseudonym – argued the Commonwealth law should apply, rather than state laws.

Neither the federal nor state laws are definitive on whether sperm donors are automatically parents.

But Mr Masson’s lawyers argued that, under the Commonwealth law, Mr Masson should be the parent, as he is the biological father and was involved in the child’s life.

Mr Masson had donated his genetic material in 2006 in a private, personal insemination to his friend of about 25 years, named under a pseudonym as Susan Parsons.

Mr Masson agreed on the understanding he would help as a parent, provide financial support and physical care.

He is named as the girl’s father on her birth certificate.

He was actively involved in the life and care of the girl and her younger sister, with both calling him “Daddy”, court documents show.

Issues arose when the mother and her partner, Margaret, tried to take the girls, then aged 10 and 9, to live in New Zealand, where the couple married in 2015.

Mr Masson was at first successful in fighting their move overseas, but the Parsons appealed before a full court of the Family Court, which agreed with the women that he was not a legal parent.

They successfully argued that the laws in most of the states rule out a sperm donor from being a father and that Mr Masson was therefore not a parent.

Mr Masson appealed to the High Court where the case was heard in April.

He argued that the Commonwealth law should apply, and said the question of who is a parent should be determined by the circumstances of each case, with reference not only to who provided the genetic material but also who had participated in social and psychological parenting of the child.

His position was backed by Commonwealth Attorney-General Stephen Donaghue, QC, and the independent children’s lawyer.

The term “parent” should take its ordinary and contemporary meaning, they argued.

Mr Masson’s lawyers said that, as he had had considerable involvement in the child’s upbringing, including volunteering at the school canteen, he was not simply a sperm donor but the father.

The High Court agreed, saying in a summary of its judgment on Wednesday: “The majority held that no reason had been shown to doubt the primary judge’s conclusion that the appellant was a parent of the child.”

With AAP, Alexandra Back

Related Family Law Judgments

Lesbian divorcees in modern age dispute over embryos

on by

divorced lesbians fight over embryosA Sydney woman has ordered for the destruction of her ex-wife’s 12 embryos even though she has no genetic link to them, a court has heard.

The couple used IVF to have twins, which were created using the first woman’s eggs, and another child, which was created using the second woman’s eggs.

The first woman and the second, referred to in court documents as Ms B Selkirk, are currently in an ongoing battle to divide their property and determine the custody of their children.

As part of their dispute, the first woman has asked the Family Court to destroy the embryos.

When the couple signed up for IVF treatment they signed a form which stated the embryos would be discarded if they were to break up.

‘It’s horrifying that someone would try to prevent someone else from having children that are not in any way related to them,’ Ms Selkirk told The Australian.

‘I think if people believed they wouldn’t have ultimate control over their genetic material then they might be more hesitant to go through the process.’

Ms Selkirk said new legislation needed to be introduced which gave people more information and control over what could happen to their embryos.

During an interim hearing last year, Ms Selkirk asked the judge to transfer the embryos into her name as they were allegedly put in her ex-wife’s name by mistake.

The judge denied this request and said the destruction of the embryos should be determined in court.

Family lawyer, Stephen Page, said he was told by Australian IVF clinics that battles over who retains the rights to embryos happened regularly but most people did not go to court.

‘But most people aren’t prepared to go to court over it. So then these embryos remain on ice, not being used and not being able to be donated to anyone else,’ he told The Australian.

In 2007, the Family Court of Western Australia ordered the destruction of embryos after a husband and wife separated.

When they signed up for IVF, they stated if they were to divorce the embryos would be destroyed.

The wife wanted to go through with the destruction of the embryos like they agreed, but the husband changed his mind and wanted them retained.

The judge ruled in favour of the wife as the embryos were created for her to get pregnant while they were together, but since they were divorced, they were no longer needed.

IVF win for Vic women split from spouse

on by

Women separated from their husbands, but not divorced, will no longer have to get their estranged spouse’s permission to access IVF in Victoria.

It follows the advice of an interim report iIVF rightsnto reproductive treatment and a Federal Court ruling in September, which found the current law discriminated against the woman on the basis of her marital status.

“We’re changing the law to reflect contemporary values of our society and ensure that women do have control over their bodies, their futures and their ability to freely access this assisted reproductive technology,” Health Minister Jenny Mikakos told reporters.

The amendments remove the requirement that women need the approval of their former partner to access IVF using their own eggs and donor sperm.

Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority chief executive Louise Johnson said there were many women who were missing out on the chance to become a mum because of the current law.

“Only a few weeks ago I had a phone call from one of the clinics, saying one of their patients was considering treatment interstate because she was affected, she was in the process of going through a divorce and wouldn’t be able to have treatment here,” Ms Johnson said.

“For women, time really matters, particularly for women in their late 30s, early 40s. Waiting a year for a divorce proceeding to go through can be the difference between succeeding with treatment or not.”

Changes to the law will be introduced into parliament on Tuesday.

Related Family Law Judgments

Want to save your marriage? Start by taking these steps

on by

Saving-Your-MarriageTimes are tough. Your relationship is in the emergency room and the last rites are being read. The person you fell in love with has the capacity and the inside knowledge to destroy you. It is time for drastic interventions.

Divorce has few victors. Children suffer. Everyone, almost invariably, loses. There may be exceptions to this but if you can consider avoiding divorce in your life, do it.

This is about the moment when your partner is on the brink of being out the door or is at the point of running you out, and it’s not what you want. Before you connect again we need to build respect, then protect and then re-connect.

First, if you do not want your relationship to end it is likely you are grieving, hurt and sad. Your partner may want to rush things along to a quick separation. For this reason slow the process down, if you can.

People who want to end a relationship abruptly are almost always out of the resilient zone. They are feeling agitated and usually ascribing the reason they feel this way to you. Usually they are in the ‘flight’ mode. Alternatively, they are absent and attributing the reason for feeling deadened to you.

As hard as it is to think about their perspective at this time, it is important. Realise that there is often just as much pain the person wanting to leave. This can be hard to believe, especially if there has been infidelity, and they will often put on the appearance that they are determined to be rid of you. In the dark recesses of their mind, however, a shred of doubt will always linger.

We are going to use that shred of doubt to increase your chances of not getting divorced.

Respect

The first thing to know is that the person you hope beyond hope will care for you and love you is not able to do that for you at the the moment. Even if they don’t show it, they are going through their own turmoil and pain. Most likely they are concealing this and instead directing their anger and blame towards you. You may well think, ‘Well, let them, it’s their fault after all – they’re the person who wants to leave!’

Make sure that the people you vent to or confide in do not make emotional submissions on your behalf.

If you really don’t want to separate and divorce, you need to think clearly and be strategic. This means you may need a lot of support from friends and family as you process your feelings.

First, avoid begging, pleading or cajoling. Make sure that the people you vent to or confide in do not make emotional submissions on your behalf.

 There is a part of you that is probably hurting like hell. There is probably another part that is furious. The fragile part of you that is in pain wants to cling on. However, if you chase your partner they will feel suffocated or hunted and shift to the agitated zone. They will begin to feel trapped and that everything has to happen quickly. Needing to cope with this will switch them into the avoidant zone. It is time to stop giving your partner reason to leave you.
This is going to be very hard, but don’t be put off by the challenge. It may be the best thing you ever do.

Stop discussing the relationship for a time

Trying to reason with or persuade a partner who wants to end a relationship rarely works. It is never just a matter of convincing the other person. You may be distressed and upset. They are also likely to be confused, reactive and defensive. This situation involves a powerful cocktail of emotions.

Stop pursing them

Immediately stop anything that your partner might view as trying to keep them involved. This means stopping: frequent phone calls, texts or emails; loving messages of any kind; begging, pleading; describing all the good times in your relationship; following your partner around; encouraging talk about the future; asking for reassurances; buying them gifts or flowers; planning holidays or trips away together; trying to schedule dates together; the surveillance program – no spying on them, checking their phone or computers or their arrangements.

Stop saying ‘I love you’. Completely stop. Every time you say ‘I love you’, you might be reminding your partner that they might not love you.

Get a life

As shattered as you likely are, get a life. While this is a really big ask, you do need ot act as if you are moving forward with your life. Otherwise, you might as well seek legal advice and draw up the documents.

I expect you are asking yourself, ‘How can I do this when I feel like crap? I can hardly function, it’a  miracle getting out of bed each day, and things are horrible at home.’

Start to treat yourself better. Start doing things that are out of character compared with the way you have been acting lately. Move gently beyond helplessness into action and power.

Edited extract from The Revolutionary Art of Changing Your Heart by Andrew Fuller, published by Hachette Australia on 28 May 2019, $29.99 Trade Paperback.

Dr Andrew Fuller is an Australian clinical psychologist.

Domestic violence perpetrators to be given crisis housing in SA trial

on by

Crisis-AccommodationSome domestic violence perpetrators will be removed from their family homes under a new scheme by a state government, but experts warn it could leave the victims struggling financially.

The South Australian government last month announced a small trial under which perpetrators will be removed and placed in crisis accommodation, giving victims the option to stay at home.

It is part of a $4 million initiative which will see 40 new crisis accommodation beds rolled out in the state – a small number of which will be for perpetrators.

SA human services minister Michelle Lensink said in announcing the pilot that it would result in less disruption to victims’ lives at an already very traumatic time.

“The trial is also an opportunity to explore what interventions might work as perpetrators will have an opportunity to engage with support services,” she said.

Experts have welcomed the trial but have concerns; not just about the safety risk of a perpetrator returning to the home, but also the victim’s ability to keep the roof over their head.

It is a good idea in theory, says Shelter SA executive director Alice Clark, because it provides stability and continued access to support networks.

But dropping from a dual-income household to one meant victims may be unable to meet rent or mortgage repayments and would need additional financial support.

“It’s like a drop in the bucket,” said Dr Clark. “We see thousands of women going back to violent situations and partners because of [poor] housing affordability.”

She added an increase in public and community housing was crucial to support victims. It was a sentiment echoed by housing consultant Sue Cripps.

“If a woman is left behind in a house with a massive mortgage or rent she’s going to end up homeless herself because she can’t afford it,” Ms Cripps said.

However Ms Cripps sees merit in the approach as long it comes with support services for both victims and perpetrators,

“How many years have we been creating safety for women at refuges and one woman a week is still getting murdered,” Ms Cripps said. “It actually makes you think it’s time for something different, but it has to be in addition, it can’t diminish what is available.”

While many may question providing accommodation for perpetrators, and prefer it if they were just kicked out, Ms Cripps said that would not solve the problem or keep victims safe.

“Just putting them out on the street does nothing to reduce anger and violence,” Ms Cripps said. “You cannot expect people to do the deep therapeutic work if they don’t know where they’re sleeping at night.”

Dr Sarah Wendt, professor of social work at Flinders University, said to seriously tackle domestic violence attention needed to turn to perpetrators, but it could not be at the expense of victims.

“If you think about the resources and intensity of moving women and children around versus one man there is some economic argument for it,” she added.

Dr Sarah Wendt believed that with the right support services a victim could address the housing affordability issue, but warned few perpetrators would move out of their own accord. She added the composition of such crisis accommodation would be crucial in helping perpetrators recover, but they would need more than a few weeks of support.

She said there are a very small number of similar programs in Australia, including Communicare Breathing Space in Western Australia and Room 4 Change in the ACT. There’s also Fixed Address, a new program on the mid-north coast of NSW, which will assist with support services and transitional housing for perpetrators at eight properties.

While no one has been housed yet under the Fixed Address program, Kempsey Families executive officer June Will said requests have come from victims, family members, correction services and the perpetrators themselves. While there has been some community backlash to the housing of perpetrators, Ms Will said that without alternative accommodation, they would simply try to go home.

“This is not about supporting perpetrators because of their violence, it is supporting them to reduce their violence,” she said. “For us it’s about a far greater reduction in risk … and you can provide a range of support for the perpetrator with more success.”

Dr Sarah Wendt warned the sector not to underestimate the potential or risk of this “brave” trial, and said initiatives should be thoroughly evaluated before they were scaled up.

Secret recordings flooding Family Court trials

on by

secret-recordings-in-family-courtAustralian judges are increasingly being presented with covert recordings of family disputes in Family Court trials. Even though they’re frequently made illegally, that doesn’t necessarily stop then being admitted as evidence.

If you wanted to provide evidence of a family member mistreating you or your child, chances are you might look to your smartphone.

It’s becoming common practice for Family Courts in Australia to be presented with home-recorded audio and video material.

Lawyers estimate more than 30 per cent of family law litigation cases now see parties submit recordings, typically recorded covertly, as prospective evidence to support their arguments.

But when are they actually admissible as evidence? Are they even legal?
In many Australian jurisdictions it’s illegal to surreptitiously record a conversation. In others, secret recordings can be made but it’s illegal to publish or communicate those conversations.

The Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Diana Bryant, says under certain circumstances, such recordings can have significant probative value—that is, provide non-prejudicial evidence that contributes to a trial.

In the 2014 family violence case of Gorman & Huffman, Justice Hannam said she was inclined to allow unlawfully obtained recordings to be admissible as evidence.

Dave (not his real name) was encouraged by police to make recordings of interactions with his ex-wife after she made serious allegations against him, which the Family Court labelled as ‘groundless’.

‘I was advised by a police officer to record any contact,’ he says. ‘”She is out to get you” were the words that were actually said to me.’

He made recordings of his ex-spouse during conversations in front of their children, and used them later in his affidavits. But recordings made by a family member in the aftermath of a dramatic violent event were ultimately deemed inadmissible by the court.

Involving children can be considered ‘problematic’
‘My ex-wife’s partner hit me with a car and stabbed me five times and I was in hospital in a very serious condition,’ Dave says.

‘They were recordings that my sister made when she was arranging for my children to come and see me in the hospital, and that would have certainly given rise to some concerns about the attitude of my ex-wife.

‘They were inadmissible as they were, as the judge put it, illegally obtained.’

Judges are particularly less inclined to allow recordings, surreptitiously recorded or otherwise, that involve children.

Recordings can backfire in eyes of the courts
The executive officer with the New South Wales Women’s Legal Service, Helen Campbell, says the courts have to be extremely wary of recordings involving children in acrimonious high conflict separation disputes. The court tends to believe involving the child in a covert recording is a manipulative situation and is using the child for the furtherance of a dispute between the parents, Campbell says.

In some cases, the judge has said that this lacks insight, and has even gone so far as to say it’s nearly child abuse, to use the child to perpetrate your arguments for you in that way! She says parents can go to extreme lengths to produce recordings involving their children, but it can actually serve to backfire in the eyes of the courts.

‘There was a case where the parent secretly put a recording device in a child’s toy, just for the purpose of recording what was being said at the time of handover,’ she says.

‘I believe that the evidence was admitted, but it was considered negatively against the person who made the recording as well as the person who was recorded. But the judge thought both parties were equally not good.’

Earlier this year, Justice McLennan warned of an ‘opening of the floodgates’ with parents submitting recorded material to the Family Court.

Yet it seems even in instances where recording have been made illegally, judges will continue to grant them serious consideration for admission as evidence if they are deemed to have sufficient probative value.

Related Family Law Judgments

Break-up coaches are exploiting the vulnerable

on by

break-up-coaches-family-law-expressHas the love of your life broken up with you? It hurts, I know. It’s fantastically painful. You’ve lost your other half, your best friend, the life you thought you’d have. You’d do anything to stop the pain. You’d do anything to get them back.

Well, according to the internet – and a variety of “break up coaches” – you can. You could read the Five Step Plan to Get Your Ex Running Back to You! by dating coach Matthew Hussey, or watch The Number One Secret to Getting Your Ex Back! by Brad Browning. You could go with Kevin, from the website Ex Back Permanently, or get private coaching from online service, The Art of Love.

You will generally begin with a 30 day “no contact” period, to give your ex-partner time to miss you. (The idea that they may be perfectly delighted to be free of your daily phone calls isn’t generally up for discussion.)

When the campaign for reconciliation begins, there are a variety of techniques to try.

Women can use social media to “re-seduce” their ex with enticing pictures of their exercise and travel. Men can use their “emotional masculinity” to “re-attract” their ex whilst at the same time letting the woman “feel like she’s in control”.

None provide statistics on how many clients succeed in “getting their ex back”, or follow up with happy couples who have worked through the techniques.

Of course, many couples do reconcile after a breakup, but it depends largely on the reason for the split.

According to Elisabeth Shaw, CEO of Relationships Australia NSW, many couples separate because they’ve reached a relationship impasse – a destructive conflict cycle, or infidelity, or betrayal. Others end their relationships due to anger, frustration or resentment, rather than a lack of love.

Some couples, however, break up for a simpler reason: one partner has fallen out of love, or feels the relationship has run its course. And in these cases, Shaw tells me, trying to call the other partner back into the relationship is not in your interests, or theirs.

“If you did manage to talk them into coming back it won’t have a great chance of success,” she warns. “It might work for a while if they are lonely or nostalgic, but then you’ll encounter the same problems and break up again.”

So when and how can one get their ex back? What actually works, when there’s still love and hope?

Well, even when there is a possibility of reconciliation, the path lies not in the tricks recommended by the breakup coaches. The path, according to Elisabeth Shaw, is self-reflection and hard work, and, possibly, couples counselling.

Some couples, however, break up for a simpler reason: one partner has fallen out of love, or feels the relationship has run its course. And in these cases, Shaw tells me, trying to call the other partner back into the relationship is not in your interests, or theirs.

“If you did manage to talk them into coming back it won’t have a great chance of success,” she warns. “It might work for a while if they are lonely or nostalgic, but then you’ll encounter the same problems and break up again.”

So when and how can one get their ex back? What actually works, when there’s still love and hope?

Well, even when there is a possibility of reconciliation, the path lies not in the tricks recommended by the breakup coaches. The path, according to Elisabeth Shaw, is self-reflection and hard work, and, possibly, couples counselling.

“Take stock of yourself and your own behaviour,” she advises. “Have a good hard think about why the relationship failed. The only way forward is to do the work and do the relationship differently.”

If you are keen to get your ex back, you will to bring something to the table, not just hollow seduction.

 “It’s not about promising things your partner wants to hear,” Shaw explains. “It’s about working on yourself and making changes.”
Ultimately, however, all the self-improvement in the world won’t work if your ex has shut the door on your relationship. As hard as it is to be rejected, sometimes there is no “getting the ex back”. You can choose to spend hours frantically googling strategies, or you can get on with the process of acceptance and recovery.

Your ex may find their way back to you one day, but it has to be through growth, and not manipulation.

Either way, the solution to the pain of a breakup isn’t to get your ex back. The solution is to get yourself back, and rebuild your life.