When couples separate, it is often a difficult and emotionally draining time for all those involved. One often challenging consideration is determining the future care arrangements that will best meet their children’s needs.
In the 2018 case of Goldman v Goldman, the wife was the primary carer to the parties’ two children aged 13 and 11 years of age respectively at the date of the trial prior to separation, and the children had also lived with the wife since separation.
I recently presented an information session for Law Week 2018 entitled “Do I need a Pre-Nup? Everything you ever wanted to know about Financial Agreements / Pre-Nuptial Agreements”. There was a request for the information provided at the session and so I intend to summarise the information provided along with links to assist.
With the new year upon us, many new enquiries relate to parenting orders and whether these can be changed. Thankfully in the recent case of Searson & Searson [2017] FamCAFC 119 (5 July 2017) the Full Court (Murphy, Kent and Loughnan JJ) reviewed the current case law with respect to this.
The Full Court of the Family Court held in the 2017 decision of Re Kelvin that the Court’s sanction is no longer required for stage two treatment of Gender Dysphoria where the child is capable of giving Informed Consent or those with parental authority authorise the treatment.
Life, financially or otherwise, does not go into a state of animated suspension after separation and pending property settlement – parties’ financial circumstances constantly change and will be different at time of separation and when orders are made.
The short answer is that the new same sex marriage laws will have no significant impact on Australia’s family law system.
Marriage, Separation and Divorce have different effects on your estate.
Australia’s family law system faces an overhaul after the government unveiled an inquiry aimed at fixing what it believes is a dysfunctional method of dealing with family breakdown.
In a recent case heard by the Full Court of the Family Court, Chancellor & McCoy, a same sex couple who were in a de facto relationship for 27 years were not required to divide their property after separation. The Court found it was not “just and equitable” to make property settlement Orders. During the…