What age can my child decide which parent they live with or spend time with?

There is no specific age at which a child can decide who they live with or whether they choose to exercise contact to the other parent.  Children are minors until they reach 18 years of age. 

A child can express a view generally in the context of a family report writer’s meeting with them about who they want to live with and whether they wish to spend time with the parent. However, any decision regarding children's living arrangements must be made in the best interests of the child.

If you require expert advice regarding parenting matters, please contact our family law department on 03 9614 7111.

Read More»

Wife takes a win after Husband’s failure to disclose his financial dealings

Judge Loughman in the Federal Circuit Court at Sydney was recently called upon to consider a matter where there had been very significant financial mis-dealings by a husband, in the case of  Rosario & Rosario [2016] FamCA 170 (22 March 2016) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2016/170.html).


Over the course of two years of litigation, the Husband appeared to disregard Court orders providing for him to deposit funds, not deal with funds, or arrange for the sale of shares and for funds to be paid to the Wife.

Instead, funds were apparently applied to pay a debt to another company that was poorly described by the Husband.

In the meantime, mortgages were defaulted upon and the Wife was left to attempt to keep the banks at bay on her very modest income.

The Husband throughout this time failed to make adequate disclosure, explain to the court precisely what debts he claimed to be paying or provide appropriate evidence to the Court.

What makes the case somewhat unusual is that as a way of recognising the significant injustice to the Wife of this situation, Judge Loughman determined that a percentage adjustment of what was left in the asset ‘pool’ should be made in favour of the Wife in light of the non disclosure.

Making reference to the matter of Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338, Judge Loughman, held that ‘The authorities have it that in the case of significant non disclosure, the Court should not feel unduly constrained in making provision, within the identified assets for the other party.’

Even though the parties had agreed to ‘add back’ some of the funds that the Husband had taken without the Wife’s consent, the Court found that the ‘extraordinary circumstances of the untenable debt are not resolved by $495,000 being added back to the balance sheet. The husband’s refusal to fully disclose the circumstances of the alleged debt prevents any scrutiny of transactions with matrimonial funds by the wife or by the Court.’

Making reference to section 79(4)(e) and to section 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 which provides that matters to be taken into account include ‘any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account’, the Judge made an adjustment of 5% to the Wife, even taking into account that the Husband received a small adjustment because he was eight years older than the Wife.

The case is significant because it provides some recourse or solution to parties who are struggling with a difficult or intransigent opponent who refuses to provide appropriate material.

Clearly every case is different and whether your situation meets the standard required in this case is a question that we can assist in answering – call Nevett Ford Lawyers Melbourne on 03 9614 7111 for a confidential discussion of your situation or email Melbourne@nevettford.com.au

Read More»

Won’t somebody please think of the children? – issues to consider when wanting to relocate interstate

Parenting with a separated former partner can have its challenges, and one of the most polarising can be the decision of one parent to relocate across the country.

The guiding principle in this area of the family law is the best interests of a child, with the two competing primary considerations being the benefit to a child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, and the need to protect a child from risk of harm in a variety of forms. The second consideration is ‘weighted’ more heavily than the first. There are a number of secondary considerations in the Family Law Act 1975 that are also taken into account.

From a practical standpoint, what this means is that there must be a compelling reason that a move would not benefit solely or simply a parent, but more importantly the child. Very clear consideration must be given to how, in the event of a move, a relationship with the other parent is maintained.

Reasons for a move might include greater cultural and educational opportunities, specialised services being available in the new region not available in the previous region, better family and emotional support for a child being in one region or another, or a parent being able to obtain much more fruitful employment in a new region, meaning that their child has a better chance at a greater quality of life.

Incidences of family violence and isolation for a parent in one region can also play a significant role in a proposed move. There may be very good reasons not to move as well, including cultural ties that would not be available in a new region, the loss of Indigenous connection to country should a move occur, and estrangement from a parent.

It is important if considering such a move that there be very clear communication with the other parent involved, and that intentions and reasoning are clearly set out for discussing.

You may not find that a parent confronted with such a proposal necessarily acts rationally or calmly at first, but it is important that a solid foundation and clear communication is established early on.

Every situation is different of course and you should obtain expert advice specific to your circumstances. The guide in this article is at a general level and should not be taken as legal advice for your specific circumstances. We are available to discuss these issues with parents considering making, or responding to someone proposing, such a move, at any time on 03 9614 7111, or by email at Melbourne@nevettford.com.au

Read More»

#instafail - Posting on Social Media during your Family Law case

The rise and rise of social media sites including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp and WeChat has presented significant challenges for lawyers practising in all areas of law, but particularly in family law.

Social media sites are more and more attractive to people wanting to vent their anger, frustration or disillusionment with what is going on in their lives, and this is reflected in what practitioners see.

Often nowadays instant messages, Facebook chats and emails between parties are submitted to Court as part of the evidence gathering process.

It is particularly dangerous for people engaged in negotiations or in Court proceedings to be continuing to post about their situation on social media.

Posting Court documents on social media can be a criminal offence under the Family Law Act 1975, whilst discussion of proceedings or children involved in proceedings may contravene family law or intervention orders.

These types of breaches can attract serious penalties including periods of imprisonment!

Most of the material posted on social media is not quite as clear-cut as this, but can still cause very serious damage to a case.

If a person, for example, posts about their drinking habits or who they are socialising with, allegations of inappropriate conduct with children might be raised.

Delicate and already damaged feelings may be further hurt by frequent posts concerning new partners, resulting in an escalation of hostilities and tension in family law negotiations.

Even posts that do not directly relate to a case may indicate somebody’s state of mind, preparedness to compromise or wanting to ‘give up’.

For these reasons, and very many more, it is a golden rule of family law to minimise and ideally cease social media posting at least during your case.

At the very least, parties should be aware of the risks and lawyers should advise of the risks, so that people can make informed decisions about their actions.

To speak more with our family lawyers about these types of issues, including what social media posts can be used as evidence and how, call our Richard Hamilton, Senior Family Lawyer, on 03 9614 7111, or email melbourne@nevettford.com.au

Read More»

The Future of the Binding Financial Agreement

'Pre-nuptial’ Binding Financial Agreements are an important tool available to the cautious and well-prepared traveller through life.

They are particularly widely-requested from parties who have already been through one hotly-contested relationship breakdown and with good reason

These parties will often appreciate what people who have not been through litigation before will not; namely that any document or record of what happened at the beginning of a relationship is an invaluable tool should a relationship end.

They also have a more acute understanding of the legal system and the difficulties they may face in actually enforcing such a document, and so lawyers can take greater comfort in their client’s appreciation of this unavoidable difficulty.

The publicity surrounding swimmer Grant Hackett’s case, and his subsequently bringing claims against his former law firms will on the other hand give even greater pause to family lawyers than many already feel. Whatever the outcome, there will be valuable learning experiences in the case, and wise family lawyers will further strengthen and hone their advice as a result.

In the grand scheme of family law in Australia, the Binding Financial Agreement remains a novel document. Family lawyers should act accordingly cautiously, but at the same time take advantage of and advise about the advantages these documents can present to clients. They may form one part of a comprehensive asset-protection strategy, particularly for clients with an interest in a business or a small business with other partners.

Read More»

Parenting post-separation – don’t become a victim to statistics

The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) recently released research which showed that only 6% of children under 17 spent equal time with both mother and father. Yet regularly family lawyers will be regularly instructed to seek an equal shared care arrangement, or what many clients refer to as ‘shared custody’. Why doesn’t this frequent desire of separated parents often materialise in reality?

There are a variety of factors that the Family Law Act (Cth) 1975 requires be considered in making Orders concerning parenting arrangements, and a good family lawyer will advise their client of these factors early on in their consultation, including the paramount consideration of the best interests of the children. It is frequently not seen to be any easy experience for children, already dealing with the difficulty of mum and dad living in separate houses, to have to live out of a suitcase on a week-on week-off arrangement. Our lawyers are experts at identifying what issues preclude an equal shared arrangement early on, so that you can ensure that your situation is appropriately managed and directed so that you improve you can get the result you are seeking. 

One more issue to come out of AIFS’ research however should be kept in mind – half of children of relationships that have broken down do not spend any overnight time at their non-resident parents’ home. By even taking the step of seeking and maintaining regular time with your children, you will be significantly shifting the odds in your favour. Call our office today to seek advice on how best to progress your situation.

Read More»