Seminar success!

Thank you to all the relationship counsellors that were able to attend our recent seminar “Counsellors, Courts and Confidentiality” and make it such a success. Attendance numbers exceeded all expectations.

The presentation prompted some good questions and discussions and also several requests for repeat presentations.

If your organisation would like this valuable topic presented to your staff please let us know. We can come to you. Please call Pam on 3221 4300.

New public seminars start in 2 weeks!

I’ve just separated – what do I do?

If that’s your question – our new public seminar is for you. “How to Survive Separation – Expert Tips” will walk you through what you need to know.

This is an informative and easy-to-follow 1 hour seminar that will be presented by Principal and Accredited Family Law Specialist, Michael Lynch, at 3 separate locations.

For only $20 you will receive information valued at over $500, as well as the opportunity to ask questions and there will be a special offer for all attendees.

Seminar dates:

• Chermside: 6pm – Tues, 20 May – Kedron-Wavell Services Club, 375 Hamilton Rd
• Mt Ommaney: 6pm – Tues, 3 June – McLeod Country Golf Club, 61 Gertrude McLeod Crescent
• Wellington Point: 6pm – Wed, 4 June – Redland Sporting Club, Anson Rd

Book your seat now! Phone (07) 3221 4300 or email [email protected].

Same relationship, second property settlement

In most circumstances, a completed property settlement results in a final order and can only be “re-opened” in limited circumstances.

An unusual situation can arise when parties to a relationship separate, make a property settlement, and then enter into another relationship with each other, which ends, necessitating a further property settlement. Does the court have jurisdiction to make another order, in circumstances where a final order has already been made?

The short answer is “yes”.

In a recent case the court confirmed that parties can, by their conduct, impliedly consent to further property orders being made.

Facts:

• The parties commenced cohabitation in 1971, married in 1985 and separated in 2000.
• Following separation the parties divided their property interests pursuant to a consent order.
• In 2006 the parties reconciled, but separated again in 2008.
• The wife filed an application for property settlement in June 2012. The husband argued at trial that the court had no jurisdiction to make property orders because of the orders made in 2002.

Decision:

• The court did have jurisdiction stating that “where parties have, by their behaviour, conducted themselves like a married couple, they should not be prevented from re-litigating the issue of property settlement”.
• The court in this case also had to decide how/whether to take into account the first property settlement orders.
• The court decided that they could not “start the clock all over again” from the beginning of the second relationship, notwithstanding the efforts of the parties to bring their finances to a conclusion at the end of the first relationship. The court went on to say that the contributions the parties made to their first relationship (which was over 30 years in duration) had a lot to do with providing a springboard from which their financial affairs stood in their second relationship.

“Overseas travel – a big bond”

Often a dispute can arise when the contact parent seeks to travel on a holiday overseas with a child, and the primary carer parent does not agree.

 

If the country is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on international child abduction, any proposed travel order by the court will usually impose very strict conditions, to best ensure the return of the child. These orders often include a monetary bond.

A recent court case considered the amount of a bond payment.

Facts:

• A father was seeking to travel with the child on a 3 week holiday to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
• The UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.
• The child, who was 13, had expressed a strong wish to go on the holiday.
• The court carefully considered the risk of the child not returning to Australia and the fact that the father only had a contract of employment in the UAE;

The Court found:

• Although there was some basis for concern by the mother, in balancing all of the factors it was in the child’s best interests for him to enjoy a short holiday with the father in the UAE provided the father complied with the conditions to ensure prompt return of the child to the care of the mother in Australia;
• That the significant bond payment of $100,000 proposed by the father was likely to be sufficient to entice the father to return the child and also adequately provide for any action the mother may need to take to endeavour to obtain the child from overseas if the child was not returned.