Allegations of family violence can significantly impact parenting matters before the Family Court. When these allegations arise, they are not just background details — they become central to the Court’s decision about what is in the best interests of the child.

Under the Family Law Act 1975, one of the primary considerations in parenting matters is the need to protect children from physical or psychological harm caused by abuse, neglect or exposure to family violence. In fact, the Court must give greater weight to this factor than to the benefit of a child having a relationship with both parents.

What Is Considered As Family Violence?

Family violence is not limited to physical harm. It includes coercive and controlling behaviour, verbal abuse, emotional manipulation, financial control, and exposing children to conflict. For example, a child who regularly witnesses shouting matches, threats, or aggression between their parents is considered to be exposed to family violence.

How Are Allegations Handled?

Once legal proceedings are underway, and family violence is raised, the Court may:

The party making the allegation should provide as much evidence as possible, including:

Ultimately, the Court’s guiding principle is whether the other party/the child’s safety and emotional wellbeing is at stake. Parenting arrangements will be made to minimize harm, which may include supervised contact, changes to time arrangements, or, in some cases, no contact at all.

Spousal maintenance is when one party to a marriage ('Spouse A') must pay financial support to the other spouse ('Spouse B'), who is unable to adequately support themselves financially. These maintenance payments may exist during and after the relationship, meaning that you don't need to be divorced or separated in order to apply for spousal maintenance.

A spouse is defined as a party to a current or former marriage, and can include de facto relationships, in which case spousal maintenance is called 'de facto maintenance.' Other than different time periods for when an application for de facto maintenance has to be lodged, there are no other significant differences.

Under the Family Law Act, Spouse A is required to financially maintain Spouse B if the latter is unable to support themselves for one of the following reasons:

  1. Spouse B is taking care of a child of the relationship who is under the age of 18 years old
  2. Spouse B's age or physical or mental incapacity prevents them from obtaining a suitable job
  3. Any other adequate reason

To determine how much spousal maintenance should be paid by Spouse A, the Court will consider 2 key factors:

  1. The needs of Spouse B
  2. The capacity of Spouse A to pay maintenance

In their assessment, the Court will also take into account circumstances such as age, income, property owned, whether the marriage affected Spouse B's ability to earn income, and whether any children under the age of 18, or adult children with a disability, will be living with Spouse A or B. The Court will ultimately decide whether spousal maintenance should be paid at all, and if so, how much.

However, Spouse B is not entitled to spousal maintenance if they marry another person, unless the Court orders otherwise. If Spouse B start a new de facto relationship, the Court may take into account the financial circumstances in the new relationship when considering whether Spouse B can support themselves adequately.

Although you are not required to be represented by a lawyer or seek legal advice, family law can be complex. Obtaining legal advice will help you better under your legal rights and obligations.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

In an ever-changing world the use of AI is having a significant impact on our everyday lives. The hot topic on the agenda today is:

Should the paths of legal proceedings and AI use be allowed to cross?

In our modern day more and more lawyers are beginning to rely on artificial intelligence to prepare their submissions and evidence to court. But this tool has raised concerns amongst the court, due to issues surrounding the quality and accuracy of these submissions from artificial intelligence.  This is evidently shown through the defamation case which Dr Natasha Lakaev cited, Hewitt v Omari (2015).

But in reality, this case did not exist. In his judgment, Justice Blow stated the cause of this error was most likely due to generative AI. This mistake from AI was caused by a phenomenon called ‘hallucinations’. These hallucinations occur when generative AI perceives pattens or objects that are non-existent, therefore creating outputs that are inaccurate or nonsensical.

This isn’t the only case where AI was misused. In another case, a legal agent at the Queensland Administrative Tribunal had submitted 600 pages of repetitive, rambling, and nonsensical material which the court had suspected to be the use of artificial intelligence.

With the lack of laws and guidelines surrounding the use of generative AI in legal proceedings, this issue has emerged as a spark of debate and discussion in court systems.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

A binding financial agreement ('BFA') is a type of contract between two people who are contemplating entering into a marriage, or are already in one, or are in the process of separation or divorce.

There are three occasions in which couples could consider a BFA:

  1. Pre-Nup: before the marriage or relationship has been entered into. This is the most common and well-known form of BFA.
  2. Mid-Nup: during the marriage or relationship
  3. Post-Nup: after the marriage or relationship, when the couple is initiating separation or divorce proceedings

Contents of BFAs

There are a range of matters which are considered in BFAs including:

- What will happen to the wealth or property which each spouse had before they commenced their relationship

- What will happen to the wealth or property acquired during the course of the relationship

- Who is going to contribute to the costs of raising children, and what proportion will each spouse pay

- If there is a family home, what will happen to it

In order for BFAs to be legally enforceable, there are certain formal procedures and requirements which must be adhered to. Some examples of these requirements include that the BFA must be in writing and signed by both parties, and that both parties must have received independent legal advice about their rights, along with the advantages and disadvantages of the BFA prior to signing it. Additionally, both parties must have given full financial disclosure to each other.

Advantages of BFAs

Finally, here are some advantages of creating a BFA:

- Asset Protection: BFAs grant both parties peace of mind that their assets are safe and secure if the relationship unexpectedly comes to an end. Planning for the future will help parties be less anxious and unsure about how they will divide their property or wealth if this issue arises

- Clear and Fair Asset Division: especially with pre-nuptial agreements, these are often agreed upon when the parties are on good terms with one another. Hence, this avoids conflicts or tensions which may arise after the parties have separated or divorced, which may make it more difficult to clearly and amicably divide the assets.

- Avoiding Court Proceedings: BFAs can be finalised within 1-2 months if both parties agree on its terms. Without this sort of agreement, there is the possibility that parties can only reach a resolution through the Family Court, which can take years. Furthermore, initiating court proceedings carry a range of challenges, including extensive costs and significant emotional burdens.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

In a recent court case, a couple separated after 7 years, in which they cared for French bulldog, Junior and British bulldog, Winnie. Kate and her former partner adopted Winnie during their relationship while Junior was Kate’s former partner's dog, before they began dating. Kate was afraid that the dog would go to her former partner after the bond she built with him over the course of 7 years. What built up her fear was the issue that both dogs were registered under his name. If they had gone to court, he would have gotten custody.

On Nine News, Kate states, "They were our kids, we didn't have human kids," as well as "I live for them... They are literally my everything." emphasising the immense need she had for them. Fortunately, Kate’s situation was lucky and rare, "Ultimately, he just said, 'Look, I just want you to have them'. And he bought himself a new dog, and they just stayed with me," she said.

In most cases, pets are not recognised under family law proceedings and are considered property. Therefore, the individual under whoever’s name the property is registered under gets custody.

Now, under a national amendment to the Family Law Act coming into effect on June 11, courts will take into consideration the emotional bonds and welfare of a companion animal when deciding who gets custody after a breakup. Meaning, the pet no longer is handed to whoever it is registered under.

Smith states that she has noticed pets becoming an angering factor in separation proceedings and are often used as a pawn, thrown from one place to the other. She recounts an instance where a client of hers struggled to find accommodation for her two dogs and concluded to leave them with her estranged husband.

In one instance, a client of hers struggled to find alternative accommodation with her two Burmese mountain dogs, so she stayed with husband until the dogs passed away before she left the relationship.

Overall, many have concluded that, “These amendments are actually the law catching up with what’s happening on the ground”.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

In November 2024, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was passed, which banned children under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms. Whilst the Bill did not individually name the social media platforms to which this ban would apply to, Communications Minister, Michelle Rowland, confirmed that these laws would apply - at a minimum - to TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram and X.

Shadow Minister for Education, Sarah Henderson, claimed that these restrictions were "absolutely critical" due to the severe mental health impacts which young people are suffering due to social media use being unregulated by parents or carers, and by the platforms themselves.

However, a recent eSafety Commissioner Report revealed that this ban has been largely unsuccessful as most children under 16 are still using social media. The Report discovered that 80% of surveyed children aged 8-12, and 95% of surveyed children aged 13-15, are using one or more social media platforms. These platforms ranged from Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube and Discord. Of the surveyed children, 54% had accessed social media through their parent's or carer's account, whilst 36% had their own account.

So, why did the ban not work?

The ban relied significantly on truthful age declaration so that social media platforms could prevent users under 16 from making an account. However, children making an account could easily falsify their age or alternatively, use their parents' accounts to access social media. Additionally, different platforms sought to enforce the ban in different ways rather than using one consistent and unified method. Accordingly, some platforms were more committed to preventing users under 16 from accessing their platform, whilst others were less effective in achieving this aim.

The Bill has also faced significant backlash and public criticism. Notably, the Human Rights Law Centre claimed that "these laws would undermine the human rights of young people in unacceptable ways, including their rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy." They argue that this social media ban does not effectively address the real problem and instead, the government should focus on making social media platforms for everyone, and holding these platforms accountable.

The increased growth and popularity of Generative Artificial Intelligence has made its way into the courtrooms as both self-represented litigants and lawyers begin relying on this tool to prepare their submissions and evidence. However, this has raised concerns about the accuracy and quality of submissions being presented to the court.

For example, in a defamation case, Dr Natasha Lakaev cited a case, 'Hewitt v Omari [2015] NSWCA 175,' but in reality, no such case existed. In his judgment, Justice Blow stated that this error was likely the product of Generative AI, highlighting that "when artificial intelligence is used to generate submissions for use in court proceedings, there is a risk that the submissions that are produced will be affected by a phenomenon known as ‘hallucination’". These 'hallucinations' occur when Generative AI perceives patterns or objects that are non-existent, creating outputs that are inaccurate or nonsensical. Additionally, in another case, a legal agent at the Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal had submitted 600 pages of "rambling, repetitive, nonsensical" material, which was suspected to have been written by AI.

Given the lack of guidelines and rules surrounding the use of Generative AI, "Judges of the Federal Court have been considering and discussing the development of either Guidelines or a Practice Note in relation to the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence"(Media statement from the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, March 2025).  This reflects the law's attempt to appropriately balance the interests of the administration of justice along with fairness and efficiency for each individual who comes before the court. The Chief Justice has stated that the court's AI Project Group will seek submissions from legal professionals, self-represented litigants, and the public starting mid-June 2025.

Submissions can be emailed to AI_Consultation@fedcourt.gov.au until June 13, 2025. This public consultation aims to inform the Federal Court's approach to regulating AI in legal proceedings, balancing efficiency with accuracy and ethical considerations. Recent incidents globally, including cases in the US and Australia involving fabricated AI-generated legal information, underscore the urgency of establishing clear guidelines for AI use in the legal profession.

In a significant move to address the pervasive issue of domestic violence, the Coalition government has pledged a $90 million package that includes the creation of a national register for offenders and the criminalisation of technology-facilitated abuse. Peter Dutton, drawing on his experience as a former police officer, announced the suite of measures aimed at bolstering the decade-long national plan to end violence against women and children.

Acknowledging the "lifelong impact of these horrific crimes," Dutton emphasised the urgency of the situation, echoing the national cabinet's previous commitment of $4.7 billion to tackle the emergency. A cornerstone of the Coalition's strategy is the establishment of a National Domestic Violence Register. This database would enable police and relevant agencies to access and share crucial information regarding an individual's history of family violence convictions, although it would not be publicly accessible. The Coalition government argues this will enhance information sharing and improve responses to potential threats.

Furthermore, the proposed package includes the creation of new domestic violence offences specifically targeting the misuse of mobile phone technology. This initiative aims to criminalise the use of phones to threaten or track intimate partners or family members, explicitly addressing the growing concern around perpetrators utilising spyware and engaging in coercive control through digital means.

This $90 million strategy represents the Coalition's long-awaited comprehensive plan to combat domestic abuse, signalling a determined effort to strengthen legal frameworks and provide law enforcement with enhanced tools to protect vulnerable individuals. Although while information is still emerging, amendments to legislation are yet to be recognised.

Pets are considered property and a shared asset in the eyes of the law, however, they are not mentioned in the Family Law Act 1975.

In most cases, the Courts will make an Order and award a pet to either party in the same Order that lists other personal property. Because the Family Law Act has yet to distinguish pets from property, they will make decisions regarding pets in the same way they might consider any other family asset.

The Court will consider a range of factors including:

Some couples choose to predetermine their financial position at separation, also known as a Binding Financial Agreement. This legally binding document outlines how assets, including pets, would be divided if the relationship ends.

Mediation is another valuable pathway and can be incredibly helpful by making couples work out ownership issues amongst themselves. If a couple cannot come to an agreement there are a few principles the Courts will apply. For example, it can be as simple as who wants the pet more.

It is important to note that there is not a formal or court-ordered custody arrangement for pets. Every case is unique and poses its own challenges, and outcomes can vary depending on your individual circumstances. If you are struggling to come to an agreement with your ex-partner, mediation is always recommended. At the end of the day, any decision you make regarding pet ownership should always prioritise your pet’s best interests in the long run.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker