Defacto property – new seminar next week!

Are you in a defacto relationship? Are you separated? What property is considered for division? – The law in this area is new and it’s complex.

Get practical and easy-to-understand answers to these questions and many more, in our latest seminar. “Defacto Break-ups and Money” This 1 hour presentation will be by family law expert, Belinda Jeffrey and it’s on next week.

This is a ONCE ONLY presentation to the public, so don’t miss out

Brisbane: 1.00pm – Tuesday, 31st March 2015, The Sebel Suites, 95 Charlotte Street, Brisbane City

BOOK NOW (only $20 payable at the door) Phone 3221 4300 or email us at [email protected]

“Close up” article

It wasn’t that long ago that the media was flooded with the reports of the “Italian sisters” international relocation case.

That was a high profile case, however the Family Court continues to deal with many such applications. When considering moving children between countries, the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction becomes relevant and it focuses on a child’s ‘habitual residence’.

To find out more, read article “What is Habitual Residence?”

Relationship counsellors – date claimer

A seminar just for counsellors, “Family law – Explained” is a NEW presentation that will be a refresher for experienced counsellors and a MUST SEE practical guide for new practitioners.

Mark your diary for (2 hours) 6.00pm, Tuesday, 5^th May 2015, Broncos League Club, Paddington.

Attendance: $40 (payable at the door)

A caution for defacto’s who have lived overseas

The division of property for de facto partners is governed by the Family Law Act. The court however, can only make an order for a defacto property settlement if either or both of the spouses to the relationship were ‘ordinarily resident’ in a ‘participating jurisdiction” (each State and Territory in Australia except for Western Australia) when the application for the order was made and that either:-

both parties were ‘ordinarily resident’ during at least a third of the relationship; or
the applicant made substantial contributions in a participating jurisdiction.

A recent case has considered the geographical requirement for defacto property settlements:-

The parties met in Sydney in 1999 and moved overseas the following year. Their relationship continued overseas until they separated in 2011. The applicant (wife) then moved back to NSW.

The wife had contributed $30,000 to the respondent’s (husband) business and $30,000 to his home. She filed an application for a property settlement. The husband sought a dismissal of the application as the geographical requirement had not been met.
The court was satisfied that the wife was a resident of a ‘participating jurisdiction’ at the time of her application as she lived in NSW. The court was not satisfied that the couple had been ‘ordinarily resident’ in a participating jurisdiction for at least one third of their relationship as they were living overseas from 2000 until the separation.
The wife needed to establish that she had made a ‘substantial contribution’ to the relationship in a ‘participating jurisdiction’. The court accepted financial contributions were made by the wife however they were all made overseas and not in a participating jurisdiction.
The court found the geographical requirement was not satisfied and the application was dismissed.

Wishes of a 9 year old

A mother recently sought to change to a court order 2 ½ years after it had been made. She wanted her 9 year old son to live with her because that was his expressed ‘wish’.

The first court order had been made after a 3 day hearing, when the child was 6. It resulted in the child living with the father in Tasmania and having 2/3 of all holidays with the mother in Victoria.

The mother brought the new court application solely on the basis of the child’s wishes, there were no concerns raised about the father. At the time of the trial the father sought for the mother’s application to be dismissed.

A family report was prepared which said that the child expressed that he preferred to live with his mum as he felt happier there as there were “no little siblings to annoy him”.

The family consultant found that the child was used to being treated ‘very special’ when spending time with the mother and if he lived with her full-time, the realities of everyday life would need to be accommodated.

Whilst the child expressed strong wishes, he was still only a young child and his views of wanting to live with his mother needed to be weighed up against the experience he had in each household. The family consultant recommended that the child remain living with the father.

The court accepted the recommendations of the family consultant and found it was not in the best interests of the child to change his residence.

Q & A

Q: What is a parenting plan?

A: A parenting plan is a voluntary agreement that must be in writing, signed and dated by both parents. It covers the day-to-day responsibilities of each parent, the practical considerations of a child’s daily life, as well as how parents will agree and consult on important issues about their children. It can be changed at any time as long as both parents agree. A parenting plan is not legally enforceable and is different from a parenting order, which is made by a court.

This document contains general comments only and should not be relied upon as specific legal advice. Readers should contact this Office for detailed information or advice on any topic in this document. Changes to the law occur regularly, no responsibility for any loss or damage caused to any person acting in reliance on this document shall be accepted by the Principal of this Office. No part of this document may be included on any document, circular or statement without our written approval.