All posts by Craig Bloxham

Barriers to overnight arrangements may be lifted under a new court proposal

External Link Click Here

Barriers constraining divorced fathers having their young children stay with them overnight may be lifted, with key family law organisations revising policies blocking overnight care of infants and toddlers.

The rethink follows the publication of an academic paper endorsed by 110 leading international experts challenging the policies. The paper is highly critical of a key 2010 study that found any regular overnight care by fathers was damaging to infants and toddlers.

The paper, Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A consensus report, by Professor Richard Warshak was published in the American Psychological Association’s journal, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, in February.

It says that the 2010 study, led by Melbourne child psychologist Dr Jennifer McIntosh, was inappropriately used to suggest that any regular overnight care by fathers was damaging to infants and toddlers. ‘‘This study provides no reliable basis to support custody policy, recommendations or decisions,’’ the Warshak paper found.

The experts said the findings of Dr McIntosh’s study should not have been used as a platform for developing public policy in this area. Dr McIntosh has told Fairfax Media she pointed out in her research paper that her findings should not have been used for making policy.

Professor Warshak was an ‘‘impassioned advocate’’ seeking to discredit her to further his own political agendas, Dr McIntosh said. She said her work had been ‘‘interpreted in a particular way by fathers’ rights groups for some time’’, and that ‘‘the conclusions in her research were only ever gender neutral, and cautionary only as to frequency of overnight care of infants in particular circumstances’’.

McIntosh’s lawyer said: ‘‘Unfortunately, she cannot control how these conclusions are extrapolated by third parties and then attributed to her. However, it is important to confirm that she is not the source of such extrapolations.’’

Some key organisations, such as the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health are revising their policies regarding overnight care of infants, as are many of the Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) offering the compulsory mediation required prior to Family Court proceedings.

‘‘Given the new positions papers that have recently been published we will be reviewing the literature that we give to parents to help them make the best decisions they can for their children,’’ said Matt Stubbs, the acting clinical services director of Interrelate family centres.

One of the experts who endorsed the consensus paper, foundation director of the Australian Institute of Studies, Don Edgar, said he was ‘‘disturbed’’  that research findings were  used against fathers’ access to, and visiting rights with, young children.

‘‘Those who endorsed Warshak’s careful review paper are not ideologists for men; they simply object to the misinterpretation of data and its misuse in family law policy,’’ he said. ‘‘Children need consistent contact to form bonds with fathers and other carers, not just mothers, and lack of early contact denies children both the right to dual parenting and to ongoing child support from their fathers.’’

The expert paper concluded infants commonly develop attachment relationships with more than one caregiver and that in normal circumstances children are likely to do better if they have some overnight contact with both parents.

It said depriving young children the opportunity to stay overnight with their fathers could compromise the development of father-child relationships.

McIntosh has recently co-authored a two-part paper soon to be published in the Family Court Review – ‘‘Parental separation and overnight care of young children: Consensus through Theoretical and Empirical Integration’’ – which examines the current research evidence and acknowledges that ‘‘cautions against any overnight care during the first three years have not been supported’’.

There are signs the new consensus paper could affect current policies. Diana Bryant, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, said she expected her court’s personnel, including judges, family consultants and experts to be familiar with current research, including recent developments regarding overnight care.

Relationships Australia, which runs most of the FRCs issued this statement: ‘‘If there has been a trend towards limiting shared parenting and overnight contact with young children and fathers in recent years, it has not been a move advocated by Relationships Australia. We have noted an increase in shared parenting in recent years and consider this a positive outcome for both children and parents.’’

Federal Attorney-General Senator George Brandis said: ‘‘it is very important key public institutions have regard to evidence-based advice,’’ while noting the government cannot direct policy influencing mediation in FRCs nor decisions made by the courts.

While there is nothing in the Family Law Act concerning overnight care of pre-schoolers, the Coalition has previously indicated it would examine changes made by the Labor government to Howard government reforms promoting shared parental care.

 

Want Free Legal Aid Access? If You Live In The City of Gloucester Your in Luck

Free legal aid access

Read More at:  http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/story/2225817/free-legal-aid-access/?cs=435

ELIGIBLE people living in and around Gloucester can now get regular, free legal assistance for civil law issues.

Bucketts Way Neighbourhood Group and the Legal Aid Newcastle office have teamed up to provide fortnightly free legal advice services.

The advice will be provided via web-conference or telephone by lawyers from Legal Aid NSW.

Clients will be supported by staff from Bucketts Way Neighbourhood Group to use technology to access lawyers.

People can get assistance with problems including: debt and money issues; problems with housing; issues with Centrelink payments and Centrelink debts; issues with employment; guardianship and powers of attorney; fines and traffic offences; driver’s licence suspensions; car accidents; buying goods and services; AVOs; discrimination; and problems with police.

“The use of telephone and web conferencing is an innovative way of facilitating access to legal services for people living in Gloucester,” chief executive of Legal Aid NSW Bill Grant said.

“It is important that people can get help with common legal problems such as credit and debt, employment law and tenancy issues. Problems such as these can have a very big impact on people’s lives.

“Getting advice early can help people understand their situation and what they can do about it and, in some cases, find a way to pursue their rights and entitlements,” Mr Grant said.

 The initiative was formulated out of Bucketts Way Neighbourhood Group’s community development worker Kelley Chapman advocating for the community to have a free legal presence in Gloucester.

“It is exciting as Legal Aid has not convened its clinics utilising technology in delivering their service, via web cam, in this manner previously. Essentially Gloucester is a pilot service,” she said.

“If the service proves to be successful the initiative will be able to be delivered into other rural isolated communities which will potentially support once unreachable communities due to time and cost restraints.”

The clinics will be held at Bucketts Way Neighbourhood Group at 14 Queen St every second and fourth Thursday of the month from 9.30am to 12pm. Bookings can be made by calling

Kelley Chapman on 6558 2058 or email neigh.centre@bwng.org.au

Great Cause Helping Those in Need

Legal eagles to Walk for Justice

Read More at: Click Here

Hundreds of lawyers will take to the streets during Law Week next month to celebrate National Pro Bono Day and raise funds for Justice Connect.

This year’s Walk for Justice will be held on 13 May in Melbourne, Sydney and Newcastle as part of Law Week 2014 (12-18 May).

The event supports pro bono organisation Justice Connect, which provides access to justice to marginalised and disadvantaged people and the community organisations that support them.

Legal eagles to Walk for Justice

In Sydney and Newcastle the Walk for Justiceis dedicated to the Justice Connect MOSAIC program and the work pro bono lawyers do in assisting refugees and newly-arrived migrants.

The Melbourne event will focus attention on the Justice Connect Homeless Law program and a new project that aims to prevent women and their children from becoming homeless.

Last year, the Walk attracted hundreds of lawyers as well as Lawyers Weekly.

“I thought it is a good thing to do,” Allens paralegal Jacques Mcelhone told Lawyers Weekly at the 2013 event.

“I do know that PILCH do a lot of good work in the community for people who don’t have access to legal representation, so I thought it would be a good thing to support,” he added.

It is still possible to register for the walk, which takes about an hour.

Helpful Article for People Seeking Self Representation

Standing up for themselves: self-represented litigants

Read More at:  http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/5361264

Audio Link:  https://soundcloud.com/abc_rn/representing-yourself-in-court

Thursday 3 April 2014 9:08AM

With legal aid budgets under extreme pressure and the cost of hiring a lawyer out of reach for many, self-represented litigants are increasingly common, particularly in the civil and family court systems. Christine Demiris takes a look at the litigants who go it alone.

Last week, John* represented himself at a three-day hearing at the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane after being quoted $20,000 by a lawyer. Despite reaching an out-of-court settlement he was happy with, John found the experience confusing and stressful. ‘Just being able to stand in front of a courtroom and have your say … became quite difficult to get through,’ he says.

John received some assistance in preparing his case from the Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House (QPILCH). They helped him draft documents and explained the legal steps in the process. John says the assistance also helped him in forming questions for witnesses.

In a lot of ways self-represented litigants have expectations of the court system that don’t reflect the reality of the situation.

ELIZABETH PENDLEBURY, QUEENSLAND PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CLEARING HOUSE

Despite the obvious value of such pre-trial assistance, QPILCH coordinator and Federal Court solicitor Elizabeth Pendlebury believes that the ability of a litigant to successfully argue his or her own case ‘really depends on the litigant, it depends on how sophisticated they are themselves, how readily they wrap their heads around the information that we are able to provide’.

There are success stories, such as one self-represented client who, following an 18-month process, ran a five-day trial, obtained the orders he had been seeking and was then able to successfully respond to a consequent appeal.

‘In a lot of ways self-represented litigants have expectations of the court system that don’t reflect the reality of the situation,’ says Ms Pendlebury. ‘So there’s a perception that if they can “have their day in court” everything will be all right … they don’t expect to have to follow a lot of pre-trial proceedings and steps to set out their case.’

The lack of understanding about court and pre-trial processes presents a unique challenge to the courts. Judge Phillip Misso manages the damages list in the County Court of Victoria. He describes some self-represented litigants setting up their cases in an ‘almost indescribable’ manner when compared to what a lawyer would do. The result, according to Justice Misso, is a situation in which sometimes ‘I think you do have a pretty good case, you just haven’t had the means by which you can pull it all together’. For this reason, Justice Misso says, self-represented litigants ‘in the majority of cases … don’t come off too well’.

There are measures in place to assist self-represented litigants in the County Court of Victoria, such as a self-represented litigant coordinator and informative videos and booklets. Some judges also assist self-represented litigants by making orders that are a sort of ‘roadmap’, setting out the steps that the person is required to take and signposting to help manage people’s expectations about the process. There is, however, a limit to what the court can do because of the need preserve the integrity of the adversarial system. ‘We have to be very careful that we don’t go too far to actually be the advocate for the self-represented litigant,’ says Justice Misso.

Managing expectations is particularly important, and particularly difficult, when faced with a querulous litigant. Although they make up only a small percentage of the broader group of self-represented litigants, querulous parties can have a significant impact on the court process. Tania Sourdin is a professor of law and dispute resolution at Monash University. She says querulous litigants in some cases ‘present information which is incorrect or inaccurate, or behave in a way which makes it very difficult to run a case in an appropriate manner, and really to accord some dignity in terms of the processes’. The bad behaviour Ms Sourdin describes includes examples of stalking, deliberately causing delay and presenting information which is incorrect or inaccurate.

‘The way in which the person talks to the person on the other side is so appalling that one really wonders how justice can be done under those circumstances,’ says Sourdin.

Communication between parties is a particular concern in the family law jurisdiction, where self-representation is common. Kate* acted for herself when her ex-partner sought to vary the care arrangements for their children. ‘The biggest problem was the fact that the other party did have a lawyer, and so I think he felt like he could push me around a little bit more than he may have if I had representation,’ she says.

Read more: Can police be held responsible for not protecting women?

Like John, Kate consulted with a lawyer prior to her hearing, which she says helped her level of confidence. Nonetheless, Kate says that she would recommend hiring a lawyer for those who can afford it. ‘I would have felt much more confident … that would have maybe not made the situation so stressful,’ she says.

The ability of an unrepresented litigant to effectively navigate the process and obtain a satisfactory outcome from the court when compared to a represented litigant depends on the case, according to Mark Le Poer Trench, a judge in Sydney’s Family Court. He believes that in less adversarial cases, such as parenting cases, the ‘judges take on a far more active role’ whereas in a more strictly adversarial case such as property disputes, it is up to the unrepresented litigant. ‘They have to put before the court evidence to support the orders that they are seeking,’ he says.

Self-represented litigants also create a difficult situation in which alleged perpetrators of abuse or violence cross-examine their alleged victims. In those circumstances, ‘a judge just has to control it’ so as to ensure the alleged perpetrator is not further abusing somebody throughy their questioning, says Le Poer Trench.

Eleanor* was directly cross-examined by her abusive ex-partner during Family Court proceedings. She describes the ‘horrendous’ experience as having ‘stripped’ her. ‘At the end of the day I walked out of there not sure whether I could actually face the court the next day, and I literally wanted to throw myself in front of the first bus,’ she says.

Despite a warning from the magistrate that he only ask appropriate questions, Eleanor felt her ex-partner was given ‘all of his power back’. ‘Even though his questions may not have seemed to have been that bad to other people, he knew which questions to ask, he knew how to press the buttons of trauma for me,’ she says.

The prospect of going to trial and being directly cross-examined by a violent ex-partner is a source of major discouragement against pursuing court action, according to Pasanna Mutha-Merennege, the Womens Legal Service of Victoria’s policy and campaigns manager. Ms Mutha-Merennege feels that, as well as additional legal-aid funding, there is a need for legislative protection to prevent self-represented litigants from being able to directly cross-examine vulnerable parties.

About 30 per cent of trials in the Family Court involve an unrepresented party, according to the 2013 annual report published by the court. Given the considerable expense of hiring a lawyer and the strain on legal aid funding, that is unlikely to change. Instead, self-represented litigants are likely to become more common. Given this reality, guidance from the court and the sort of legislative protections advocated by Ms Mutha-Merennege will be increasingly important to ensure that people are able to navigate the justice system on their own.