In 2006 legislation was passed in the Australian parliament that was designed to ensure that shared parenting child custody arrangements were available to separated or divorced parents. What is little understood by the general public is that these laws are not mandatory and the majority of these cases decided before the courts have resulted in custody of the child or children still resting with the mother? The primary consideration of the court is that any shared parenting arrangement should be practical, safe and in the best interests of the child. This was the original intent of the legislation, and also the desires of the broader community.
As with many similar issues, the broader community often loses out against the louder voices and targeted campaigning of lobby groups that may or may not choose to present the details of the issues in a fair and balanced manner. Issues relating to family law Brisbane are especially difficult because there are usually children involved, and emotions run hot in these situations.
It becomes very difficult for the interested lay person to sift through the assumptions and distortions that can sometimes be presented to them as fact. As a result, there are some myths still surrounding this legislation, one of which is that these shared parenting child custody arrangements are mandatory. This is simply not the case.
Another misconception is that children in sole custody arrangements are less likely to become victims of child abuse than those in shared parenting arrangements. However, statistics show that 70% of child abuse cases occur in single mother households. Shared parenting has the opposite result, primarily because the children have contact with not only both parents, but with the extended families on both sides. This makes it unlikely that any child abuse would go undetected by either parent.
Shared parenting child custody arrangements have resulted in reduced incidents of violence against women and children, rather than the increase that opponents of the legislation believed we would see. Because both parents are sharing the responsibility and have the opportunity to be equally involved in the child’s life, much of the emotion is taken out of the situation, resulting in less violence.
While shared parenting reduces the child support payments to the mother, it does not lessen the financial contribution of the father. It increases it by requiring the father to provide suitable housing, furniture, clothing, toys, educational resources etc. for the use of the child or children during the time they are with him. Financial issues need to be sorted out for the benefit of the whole family, and is best left to family lawyers Brisbane who keep the situation impartial.
Children in shared parenting arrangements are often thought of as being pushed from pillar to post, but these arrangements are no different to the “every second weekend” scenario. They can be made to work in the right circumstances for the betterment of the children.
Relationship break-downs are always distressing, especially if there are children involved. With forty percent of marriages ending in divorce, and many de facto relationships also going down the same road, there are literally thousands of children every year who experience loss, confusion, fear and sadly, in some cases, actual violence. The Family Law Bill was originally drafted as an amendment to the existing Family Law legislation, to protect children and families at risk of violence or abuse. A number of provisions were put before parliament, and there was a great deal of vigorous debate and lobbying by those with vested interests, all trying to influence the outcome.
Of particular concern by groups representing the fathers of children affected by separation or divorce, was the proposed changes to the shared parenting arrangements instigated by the previous government, and what that could mean in terms of their access to their children. Some experts in family law Sydney assisted these groups to make representations to parliament to have this issue fully debated.
One of the changes that caused concern was the broadening of what is considered legally to be family violence, arguing that almost any contentious issue within a family that caused dissent between the adults could be construed as family violence if the legislation was passed as originally drafted. By prioritising the safety of children in parenting matters, it was felt that this could, in turn, be grounds for a father to be denied access to his children.
Another issue was that of vigorously pursuing fathers who fell behind in their child support payments, supported by proposed changes to bankruptcy laws. Lobby groups argued that many fathers who went on to form another relationship found themselves disadvantaged because of their financial responsibilities to the spouse and children of the new relationship, while supporting the children from the previous one under a disproportionate financial arrangement.
The Family Law Bill was introduced to the lower house for its first reading in March 2011, had it second reading debated through May 2011 and passed its third reading on 30 May 2011. It was introduced into the Senate in June 2011 and after subsequent readings and amendments, was returned to the House of Representatives on 24 November 2011. With the lower house agreeing to the Senate amendments, the bill was passed by both houses on that day.
The Senate Committee took submissions from interested parties and some of the amendments served to address some of the concerns already expressed. However, in passing the Family Law Bill, amendments were also made to The Bankruptcy Act 1966 and The Family Law Act 1975. Family lawyers Sydney noted that these were mainly technical amendments.
Family law issues are almost always highly emotional, and the difficulty for the legislators is to make laws that are seen to be fair to all parties, but as stated in these amendments, that also treat the safety of children as the highest priority. It is hoped that the Family Law Bill has achieved that end.
For most people with a reasonable income and a sound credit rating, ready access to credit has provided them with a standard of living that is the envy of previous generations. Once, the family mortgage and a loan for a vehicle were the only payments to banks or finance companies for the average wage earner. These days, however, multiple credit cards, the two vehicle household, and a relaxing of the old requirement to have a substantial deposit before being granted a housing loan, has seen more and more people in situations where hardship and credit go hand in hand.
Despite the best efforts of borrowers to repay their loans, a car or work accident, an unexpected illness or sudden job loss is enough to put many borrowers under credit stress. It is at these times, that bringing all your loan and income documentation to an appointment with lawyers Brisbane could be the start of a solution.
When hardship and credit combine to wreck the best laid life plans, the first thing to do is take action. Many people lose everything simply because they are overwhelmed by their situation and don’t know the options available to get them back on track. Credit contracts can be renegotiated in certain circumstances, allowing an extension to the payment period, a reduction in the amount to be repaid or a postponement to the payments if there is reasonable cause.
Alternative arrangements must firstly be requested of the credit provider, backed up by sound reasons. Once the request has been submitted, the credit provider must advise in writing within 21 days of their decision to accept or reject the request for changes to the credit contract. If they reject the request, they must provide reasons, and give the borrower contact details of an external resolution scheme in which they are a member, along with information about the borrower’s rights under such a scheme.
If the outcome is positive and the request is accepted, the credit provider must, within 30 days from the date of the agreement, provide written advice of the changes to the contract to the borrower and any guarantor who may be involved. It is also possible, if a person can prove that the terms of a contract at the time of signing, was unjust, unconscionable, harsh or oppressive, to apply to the courts to reopen the contract. This situation would best be dealt with by solicitors Brisbane who can act on the borrower’s behalf.
Life presents us with many challenges along our journey, and while we all hope that nothing adverse comes our way, it doesn’t take much to disrupt the most carefully thought out financial strategy. Seeking legal advice and advising the credit provider immediately are the first steps to say goodbye to hardship and credit issues.
It’s hard to imagine anyone in our society not being touched at some time in their life by consumer contracts law, although it’s not something that most people are particularly aware of. Usually, the first time it becomes an issue is when a consumer has a complaint about some goods they have purchased or a service they paid for which didn’t meet their expectations. It becomes even more complicated for them if they have actually signed a consumer contract that has an impact on their ability to receive recompense in cash or kind for their loss.
Despite the efforts of legislators to have all legal documents written in “plain English” most contracts are still difficult for the average consumer to read and understand without assistance from lawyers Sydney. To make the issue even more difficult for the consumer, some contracts have exclusion and limitation clauses that may diminish their rights disproportionately against those of the supplier.
Exclusion or limitation clauses are usually inserted in a consumer contract by a manufacturer or supplier of goods or services wishing to exclude or limit a liability that may arise from the contract they have with the customer. Many such clauses are legally valid and fall within the boundaries of consumer contracts law.
The courts will determine if an exclusion or limitation clause is valid by examining if the clause is included in the signed contract, if there was reasonable notice of the existence of the clause prior to the terms of contract being agreed and if the parties had prior dealings over a period of time. The consumer has rights under consumer contracts law, and exclusion or limitation clauses that seek to remove those rights will not be seen as valid by the courts.
In these cases, the courts examine the way the clause is written in relation to the party that is relying on the clause to exclude or limit their liability. The courts will look even closer if that party was in a more powerful bargaining position than the other party or parties to the contract.
The party who will be advantaged by the exclusion or limitation clause must show the court that the clause was part of the contract. The courts also look at whether or not the clause was included in the written agreement, and if the wording of the clause was clear, unmistakable, and covered the anticipated situation it was included for. With such complexity involved, it is vital that consumers first check with their solicitors Sydney before signing difficult consumer contracts.
The courts look unfavourably on exclusion or limitation clauses that are broad, poorly constructed and ambiguous, and the manufacturer or service provider who is relying on these clauses could be facing an undesired outcome.
