Submission - Law Institute of Victoria

FamilyLawBranch

Attorney-General’sDepartment3-5NationalCircuit

BARTONACT2600

Viaemail:

T03 96079311

F03 96025270

Date17February2017

DearColleagues,

PublicConsultationRe:FamilyLawAmendment(FamilyViolenceandOtherMeasures)Bill2017

TheLIVwelcomestheCommonwealthGovernment’scommitmenttoimprovingthefamilylawsystem’sresponsetofamilyviolenceandthankstheAttorney-Generalfortheopportunitytoprovidefeedbackinrelationtotheproposednewmeasures.

TheresponseoftheLIV’sFamilyLawSection(whichcomprisesover2,700memberspracticingprimarilyinfamily,andchildren’slawinVictoria)isbelow.AdditionalcommentshavebeenprovidedbytheLIV’sCriminalLawSectioninrelationtotheproposedcriminalizationofbreaches:

GeneralComments

TheLIVagreesthatasimplificationofPartVIIoftheFamilyLawAct(“FLA”)(whichoutlinesthelegislativepathwaytheCourtmustfollowtodeterminethebestinterestsofchildreninparentingmatters)wouldassist:

a)PartiestobetterunderstandhowparentingmattersaredeterminedundertheFLA;

b)Increasetheprospectsofpartiesresolvingtheirmatterpriortoafinalhearingand,consequently,alleviatesomeofthepressureonthefamilylawcourts’resources.

SpecificresponsetoExposureDraftandConsultationPaper

1.EnablingStateandTerritoryChildren’scourtstobeprescribedascourtsofsummaryjurisdiction

TheLIVagreesthatamendmentshouldbemadetotheFLAtoclarifythatthestateandterritorychildren’scourtsarecourtsofsummaryjurisdictionundertheFLA.Itwouldreduceconfusionwithintheprofessionif theChildren’sCourtofVictoria hadthesamepowerstomakeordersundertheFLAastheMagistrates'CourtofVictoria.

However,toensureconsistencybetweenthestateandCommonwealthjurisdictions,theLIVrecommendsthatguidelinesandprotocolsbedeveloped(followingconsultationbetweenstateandfamilycourts)asto:

a)whichmattersaresuitabletobeheardinthestatecourts;

b)whichcasesshouldbetransferredtoeithertheFamilyCourt(FCA)orFederalCircuitCourt(FCCA);

c)astreamlinedprocessbywhichmattersaretransferredtoeithertheFCCAorFCAwithprovisionmadetoenabletheCourtstoshare informationandevidencetoreducethecostoflitigationtothepartiesandminimisedelay.

Theextenttowhichthisproposedamendmentissuccessfulwillultimately dependonthetrainingundertakenbythestateandterritoryjudicialofficers.TheLIV’sFamilyLawSectionisconcernedabouttheleveloftrainingforfamilylawmattersproposedforjudicialofficersintheconsultationpaper(1moduleoffamilylawtraining).FamilylawiscomplexanditsCourtsarespecialistcourts.TheLIVconsidersfurthertrainingforstateandterritoryjudicialofficersexercisingpowerundertheFLAwould:

a)improvethequalityoftheordersmadebystateandterritorycourtsundertheFLA;

b)reducethevolumeofsubsequentlitigationinthefamilylawcourtsforordersthataremadebystateandterritorycourtswhicharefoundnottobeinthebestinterestsofchildren;

c)increasetheconfidenceoflitigantsinthefamilylawsystem.

Suchtraining should becoordinatedasbetweenthestate,territorycourtsandtheCommonwealthfederalcourtsonceprotocolsareestablishedastothe typesofmattersitisproposedbedealtwithbythestateandterritorycourtsandtoensureconsistencybetweentheapproachestofamilylawmattersacrossallcourtsexercisingjurisdictionundertheFLA.

TheLIVisalsoconcernedabouttheproposedtimingfortheintroductionofthisamendmentinlightoftheproposaltoreviewPart7oftheFLA.ItmaybemoreefficientandeffectiveiftheseamendmentsweremadeafterthePart7issimplified.

TheLIV’sFamilyLawSectionisalsoconcernedaboutthelevelofproposedtrainingforjudicialofficerswithrespecttofamilyviolence(1module).InVictoria,theRoyalCommissionintoFamilyViolence recommendedtherolloutofspecialistfamily violence magistrate’scourtsnotingthatthecomplexdynamicsoffamilyviolencerequirethesophisticatedunderstandingthatcouldonlybeprovidedinaspecialistcontext.

LIVconsidersaspecialistapproachshouldbeadoptedforthecourtsproposingtoexercisejurisdictionundertheFLA.

2.Proposedchangestothe$20,000monetarylimitonpropertymatters

TheLIV’sFamilyLawSectionagreesthatthe limitshouldbeincreased(notingithasnotincreasedforatleast2decades)butconsidersthatthelimitbecapped.

TheLIVconsidersthatamaximumlimitneedstobeclearlyspecifiedintheAct(notdeterminedbyregulation)toensurethislimitremainsclearandconsistentandproperconsiderationofanyamendment/stosameinthefuturecanbeprovided.

3.ProposedAppealProcess

Itisnotclearfromtheconsultationpaper whattheprocessedprocessisforappealsfrom thestateandterritorycourtsvestedwithpowertomakeordersundertheFLA.

TheLIV’sFamilyLawSectionconsidersthatallappealsfromstateandterritorycourtsdeterminingordersmadepursuanttoFLAshouldbemadetotheFamilyCourtofAustralia(specialistsuperiorcourt)andnotdeterminedbyasuperiorstatecourt.

4.CriminalisationofabreachofPersonalProtectionInjunctionOrder

TheLIVsupportsinprincipletheproposaltocriminalize abreachof apersonalprotectioninjunctionorder(PPIO).TheLIV’sCriminalLawSectionnotesthatthisproposaltocriminalizeabreachofaPPIOisconsistentwithprovisionsregardingcriminalbreachesinVictoria.

However,concernsareraisedbythe LIV’sFamilyLawSection inrelationtotheproposedprocessbywhichthismayoccur.Forexample:

a)WhiletheproposedamendmentwouldallowapoliceofficertoarrestarespondentforbreachingaPPIO,itisnotclearwhether:

a.acontraventionapplicationwouldstillneedtobefiledforthebreachtohavecarriagethroughthefamilylawcourts;

b.thatofficerwouldbeastateorfederalpoliceofficer;

c.thepartiestothecontraventionapplicationcommencedbytheofficerwouldincludebothparentsorothersuchpersonswhomay be named intheorders.Forexample,aPPIOmaybeincludedinfinalordersmadeinrelationtoa2yearoldchildin 2010which haslegaleffect untilthechild is18yearsold.The parties mayafteranumberofyearsimprovetheirrelationshipandwishtocommenceacarearrangementforthechildwhichisdifferenttotheoneorderedbytheCourt.ArguablythepartywhoisnamedinthePPIOwouldin breachofthePPIOandtheotherpartycouldalsobeprosecutedastheywouldhaveassistedtofacilitatethebreach.Suchanoutcomeiscounter-productivetopartiesmovingonwiththeirlivesandbuildingarelationshipwhichisamicableandbestforthechild.

d.Thecontraventionapplicationproceedingscommencedbytheofficerwouldbelimitedtoprosecutingthebreachorwouldallowthefamilylawcourtstovarytheprimarycareorder(asthecaseincurrentcontraventionapplications[1]).

Thisisconcerningas,arguably,itmeansthatthepartiescouldbeforcedintofamilylawcourtlitigationbythestateagainsttheirwishes.

TheLIVconsidersanycontraventionapplicationproceedingscommencedbytheofficerbelimitedtojustprosecutingthebreachandexcludetheoperationofs70NBAoftheFLA.

e.Theofficersneedwouldbesufficientlyresourced,trainedorexperiencedinlegalmatters tobeabletodeterminewhether or notabreachhas occurred.Animportantdistinctionbetweenfamilylawcourtordersandpersonalprotectionordersmadebyastatecourt(inVictoria,interventionorders)isthattheycanlegallybeoverturnedbythepartiesenteringintoaparentingagreement.Thisisdesigned toallow parties to changetheircare arrangementin acosteffectiveandeasymannerwithoutrequiringthemtoreturntoCourtorreceiveindependentlegaladvice.ApartyaccusedofbreachingaPPIOcould,intheory,produceapaperwithahandwrittencareagreementsignedby bothpartieswhicheffectivelyoverridesthePPIO.Itwouldbeadifficultevidentiaryexercisetoascertainwhetherthe otherpartyconsentedtotheparenting plan, was coerced intosigningand/orwhetherthesignaturewasforged.

TheLIVnotesthattheconsultationpaperdidnotdetailtheprocessesproposedfortheprosecutionofbreachesofPPIO.Atpresent,theCommonwealthfamilylawcourtsdonothavetheprocessesnortheresourcestohearsuchmattersordevelopprocessesbywhichtohearsuchmatters.Withoutfurtherfunding,thefamilylawcourtssimplylackthenecessaryresourcestohandlethecontraventionapplicationsinatimelymanner.

TheLIVnotesthattheMagistrates'CourtofVictoriaalreadyhasexperienceandprocessesbywhichbreachesofinterventionordersareheard.TheLIVquerieswhetherconsiderationoughttobegiventotheMagistrates'CourtofVictoriahavingthepowertoprosecutebreachesofPPIO’s.ThiscouldarguablybeachievedbycomplementarystateandfederallawreformwhichexpandsthedefinitionofinterventionorderstoincludePPIOsmadebyafamilylawcourt.TheNationalFamilyViolenceOrderDatabasewouldrequiresuchasteptoachieveitsintention.WeunderstandsimilarstepshavealreadybeentakeninTasmaniatoachievethis.

5.Removalof21daytimelimitonvariationoffamilylawordersininterimproceedings

TheLIV’sFamilyLawSectionsupportstheremovalofthe21daytimelimitas itrelievesthevictimfromneedingtobringfurtherfamilycourtproceedingswithin21days.

However,theLIVconsiders thatanothertimelimitshouldbeintroducedtoavoidcreatinga‘status’quo’situationwiththefamily’scarearrangementwhichmayhaveanundesirableeffectonthedeterminationoffamilylawmattersorpromoteapplicationsbeingmadeforstrategiclong-termpurposeswhichhavelittletodowiththemeritsoftheInterventionOrderprocess.

Atpresent,thebasicfactthatoneparentmay notbeabletospendtimewithachildasaresultofan Intervention Orderwillnotnecessarilymeanthatparentwillobtainan urgentinterimhearinginthefamilylawcourts. Theapplication for areviewofa suspension ofa parentingorder could takefrom4-8monthstobeheardinthefamilycourts.Thistimeframealone,puttingasideallotherconsiderations,hasthepotentialtodetrimentallyimpactuponachild'sattachment,routineanddevelopmentalgrowth.

Thelongerthedelaybetweenasuspensionandareviewcanresultinamoreentrenchedstatusquo forthechild,whether appropriateor otherwise.Thistimeperiod may,in and ofitself,become

afactorforconsiderationinthefamilylawscenario wherethechild'sbestinterests(theparamountconsiderationundertheFLA)willbeconsideredinacontextwherethechildmaynothavespenttimewithaparentforaconsiderableperiodoftime.

TheLIVsupportsanextensionofthe21daytimelimittovary,dischargeorsuspendaparentingorderhoweversuggeststhatatimelimit,potentiallyof60days,beimplementedinstead.

6.Dismissalofcourtstodismissunmeritoriousclaims

TheLIVhasnoobjectionstotheproposedamendmentsregardingthecourt’spowertodismissunmeritoriousclaims.

TheLIV’sFamilyLawSectionconsidersthattheconcernsnotedinthepaperraisedbyWomen’sLegalServicesQueenslandandtheAustralianWomenAgainstViolenceAlliance (thatthenewprovisionscouldbemisusedbythemorepowerfulparty,andthatlitigantsinpersonmaymakemistakeswhichmaketheircasesappearunmeritorious)maybeminimizedbyensuringthatthefamilylawcourtissufficientlyresourcedtoenableitsjudicialofficerstoreceivefurthertraininginthecomplicateddynamicsoffamilyviolence.

7.Explainingimpactoffamilylaworderstochildren

TheLIVconsidersthatanexplanationoughttobegiventochildrenonlywhentheCourtdecidesthatitisinthebestinterestsofthechildtodoso.Insomecasesitmaynotbeinthebestinterestsofachildtobeprovidedwithanexplanation,forexample,whereachildlacksthematuritytounderstandtheexplanationorifthechildmaybetraumatizedorexperiencepsychologicalharmfromhearinganexplanation.JudicialdiscretionshouldalsobeutilisedtoenabletheCourtstodeterminewhoshouldprovidetheexplanationtothechild.Insomecases,thechildmayhaveanexistingrelationshipwithaprofessional(e.g.familyconsultant,IndependentChildren’sLawyer,counsellororpsychologist) anditmaybelesstraumaticforthechildtoreceivetheexplanationfromaprofessionalwithwhomtheyarecomfortableratherthanastranger.

TheLIVnotesthattherearecurrentproposalsinVictoriatorequirestateandterritoryjudicialofficers(andpotentiallyothersincludingthepolice)toexplainorprovidewrittenexplanationstocertainpersonaboutfamilylawandchildprotectionimplicationsinthecontextofinterventionorderproceedingswherethereisfamilyviolence.TheLIVconsidersthattheexplanationproposedto beprovidedinthiscontentbeconsistentwiththeproposedexplanationsgivenbystateorterritorycourtstolimitanyconfusionofthepartiesandtopromoteconsistencybetweenthe
jurisdictions.Inconsistencyasbetweenthejurisdictionswillonlyleadtoconfusionbythepartiesandincreasetheriskofcontraventionoforders.

8.Shortformjudgmentsininterimproceedings

TheLIVagreesthattheFLAbeamendedtoenable andencouragejudicialofficerstodelivershortformjudgmentsininterimproceedings.

TheLIVsuggeststhatallcourtsproposingtoexercisejurisdictionundertheFLAcollaboratetoproduceacleartemplateforshortformjudgementstoensurethereasonssuppliedbythejudicialofficeraresufficienttoconstituteproperreasonsandmitigateopportunitiesfor appeals.

TheLIVnotesthatmanyjudgmentsintheFamilyCourtandFederalCircuitCourtaredeliveredextempore,particularlyataninterimhearinglevel,whichbothassiststhejudicialofficersintermsofthetimepressuresonthem andthepartiesinthattheyreceivethejudicialdeterminationinapromptandefficientfashion.TheLIVconsidersthatextemporejudgmentsareanabsolutenecessityinthefamilylawcourts.TheLIVwouldbeconcernedwerestateandterritoryjudicialofficerstoberequiredtoprovideawrittenjudgmentineverycase,particularlygiventhefamilylawcourts'relianceuponextemporejudgments.Considerationshouldbegiventothepromotionoftheprovisionofaverbaljudgmentandmechanismsforsametobemadeavailableinprintedformassoonaspracticablethereafter.

FurtherInformationorQueries

InVictoria,therearemanyproposalsbeingconsideredtoimplementtherecommendationsmadebytheRoyalCommissionintoFamilyViolence.ItisimperativethatstateandCommonwealthreformbeconsistenttoensurethatthefamilylawsystemdoesnotinadvertentlycompromisethesafetyoffamilies,especiallychildren.

TheLIVwelcomestheopportunitytoprovideanyfurtherfeedbackinrelationtoproposedamendments totheFLAand its proposed integrationwithVictorianlawand practiceand invitesyoutopleasecontact[contact information redacted] ifyouhaveanyqueriesorwouldlikeanyfurtherinformation.

Sincerelyyours,

BelindaWilson

President,LawInstituteofVictoria

[1] s70NBAFLAallowsthecourttovaryaprimaryorderincontraventionapplicationproceedings.