New public seminar series starts next month!

Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from Accredited Family Law Specialist, Michael Lynch. Our first public seminar series is on“Separation and Property”.

Michael will explain in ‘plain-english’ the complexities of this area, identifying the common traps and (more importantly) the tips to overcome them. Anyone recently separated needs to know this!

What you will learn:

• How a property settlement is determined and dispelling many of the common myths.
• What is property? – you will be surprised.
• Know your values – it is usually not what it seems.
• How do you work our your percentage entitlement?
• And much more…

The seminars are open to everyone and the attendance fee is ONLY $20 (payable at the door).

“Separation and Property”

• Sunnybank: 6pm – Wed, 26 February – Sunnybank Community & Sports Club, 470 McCullough St, Sunnybank

• Brisbane City: 1pm – Tues, 4 March – The Sebel Suites, Cnr Charlotte & Albert St, Brisbane
• New Farm: 6pm – Thurs, 6 March – New Farm Library, 135 Sydney St, New Farm

Book Now! Seating is limited so register now by calling (07) 3221 4300 or email [email protected].

Beware of recording phone calls

Recording phone calls is sometimes considered by spouses in family law proceedings as a way to gather evidence. There are strict rules of evidence however that often prohibit phone recordings being able to be used. A recent family law case considered whether a recorded phone call could be used as evidence:-

The Facts:

• The case involved a property dispute between an elderly couple. The Husband had dementia and his son from a previous relationship acted as his legal guardian.
• It was alleged that during the relationship the wife’s daughter and her husband had loaned a significant amount of money to the elderly couple and they wanted it repaid.
• The legal guardian filed an affidavit that included the recording of a phone call between himself and

the wife’s daughter. He admitted that he had not told the wife’s daughter that the conversation was being recorded.

Court Held:

• The court was satisfied that the evidence was improperly obtained.
• Whilst the Telecommunication Act does provide for evidence that has been improperly obtained to be admitted in circumstances were the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting the evidence, in this case the court was not satisfied that the exception applied.

Court Order:

• The paragraphs in the legal guardian’s affidavit relating to the transcript of the phone call were found to be inadmissible.

NOTE:
You should be cautious about recording a telephone conversation, if it is done illegally it could amount to an offence under thatTelecommunication Act 1997 (Cth).

When can the court hold a passport?

The Family Court has the power to hold a child’s passport. So when should it exercise that power? The Court recently dealt with such a case;

The Facts:

• The application related to the parenting arrangements for a 12 year old child. One of the issues was whether the mother should deliver the child’s passport to the Court for the Court to hold in safekeeping. The mother did not want to, saying that to do so would mean that she would need to make an

Application to the Court whenever she wanted to take the child out of the country.

• The mother was born in Fiji and her mother (the maternal grandmother) still lived in Fiji. The father said that the mother had previously failed to consult with him prior to taking the child to Fiji and had, some time in the past, threatened to return to Fiji.
• The father did not object to the child travelling overseas provided he was notified a reasonable time in advance. The mother said that she had lived in Australia for 20 years and did not plan to move back to Fiji.

The Law:

• Where there is a possibility or a threat that a child may be removed from Australia, the Court has the power to order that a parent surrender the child’s passport to the Court. To do this, there must be evidence of a real possibility giving rise to a suspicion on reasonable grounds that the other parent is a flight risk with the child.

Court Order:

• There was no evidence of the mother being a flight risk with the child.
• It was in the child’s ‘best interests’ to visit Fiji from time to time provided he did not miss an unreasonable amount of school.
• The parents should take responsibility for resolving parental conflict and only use the Court as a last resort.
• The mother was not required to surrender the passport to the Court.