http://www.nextstepmediation.com.au/

Next Step Mediation, Smith Street Charlestown, Charlestown (2025)

31/12/2024

Katherine and family recently welcomed the birth of baby Isabelle 🥰💓 Katherine will be offering mediation services again from mid 2025. We wish everyone a happy New Year!!

12/11/2024

Will the Court consider an incoming inheritance when deciding "who gets what" in family law financial matters? If the incoming inheritance is "sufficiently proximate" an anticipated inheritance is relevant and may impact the outcome of family law financial matters.

The "sufficiently proximate" test comes from Moritzen & Moritzen [2018] FamCAFC 198, the trial judge found the anticipated inheritance "sufficiently proximate" and made an adjustment of 5% in favour of the husband. The decision was upheld on appeal. The wife's own mother was 99 years old and had problems with her health. The appellant was the husband, who sought a higher adjustment in his favour.

23/09/2024

Can Grandchildren make a claim for provision or further provision from a deceased Grandparent’s estate? They could …swipe ➡️ for more information

12/09/2024

Avoid the enormous cost, stress and expense of Court proceedings, let us assist with resolving your parenting dispute at mediation! The Christmas period is fast approaching! 🧑🏻‍🎄🎅🏼🤶

03/09/2024

Disagreement in relation to extra-curricular activities ⚽ In the case of Luchetti & Miller [2023] FedCFamC1F 38 there were two subject children who attended sports. The Mother's position was that she didn't agree to the children attending some of the activities. The children were living equally with each parent, week about. The Court was extremely critical of the level of parental conflict expressing concern at the "devastation" the parents have caused their boys' childhood. The Father commenced contravention proceedings in response to the Mother's contravention of the existing order 8, and he was successful in relation to some but not all of the alleged breaches following child non-attendance at training sessions during the Mother's time. The Court was critical of the Father's response in commencing contravention proceedings, referring to his reaction as "disproportionate" to the child's non-attendance.

The Court exercised its power in the best interests of the children to vary existing order 8 to require the parents to "...use their best endeavours to ensure that each of the children attend any agreed extracurricular activities", the orders provided that "An agreed extracurricular activity is an activity in relation to which the parents have both provided their written consent to the other parent prior to the children’s enrolment for each new term or season of that activity."

In relation to the children attending extra curricular activities not agreed to, the Court ordered "in the event that one parent enrols the children or either of them in an extracurricular activity without first obtaining the other parent’s written consent, the other parent is under no obligation to take the child/ren to that activity" and "save in relation to finals, and special presentation, which both parents are at liberty to attend, neither parent may attend either child’s extracurricular activities when the children are scheduled to otherwise be in the care of the other parent, without the prior written consent of the other parent".

What do you think of the Court's approach in this circumstance?

04/08/2024

Mediation offers a structured dispute resolution process that allows your employers to feel heard and have their perspectives understood. We often assist companies and businesses (large and small) to mediate employee/employer disputes. If this is something you are interested, contact us at: hello@nextstepmediation.com.au, today 👷‍♀️👮‍♂️👩‍✈️

23/06/2024

I had the benefit of watching many fantastic presentations at the 2024 Hunter Valley Family Law Conference this weekend. There was a presentation on family law contravention proceedings during which the case of Elspeth & Peter; Mark & Peter; and John & Peter [2007] FamCA 655 was mentioned, which provides guidance about what is expected of parents to avoid breaching parenting orders. At paragraph [25] the following is stated: "The obligation to ensure compliance with a parenting order carries with it more than merely an obligation to remain passive. It requires a positive application of parental authority. A parent cannot be said to deny a child medical or dental treatment or an education merely on the basis that such denial complies with a child's expressed wishes. A parent has a positive obligation to ensure, so far as possible, compliance with the orders of the Court where those orders reflect the Court's determination of what is in the best interests of the child..."

The benefit of preparing cases with an "option B" as exemplified by the case of Horowitz & Tavares [2024] FedCFamC1A 20 was also mentioned. In this case the following is stated at [15]: "Neither parent has placed before me any proposals for how the children would spend time with the father with living with the mother in Town D. ... The mother does not propose any time. I am not going to make up the kind of time that the children should spend with the father." Also "I will be making an order for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father as agreed between the parents in writing, and people can later turn their minds to what that might actually look like, but they have not done that for me, and it is not up to me to simply make it up", in addition to "in those circumstances, as the primary judge observed, she could not invent an order to fit a factual situation where the parties lived approximately nine hours apart. It was for the parties to provide evidence that would permit the fashioning of orders".

Safe to say I am excited for the next conference! Depicted in the photograph is the Next Legal & Conveyancing team and our friends from The Family Law Co.

18/06/2024

In the 2019 High Court of Australia case of Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21 the High Court heard an appeal in relation to a child conceived via artificial insemination with a known s***m donor. Mr Masson and Ms Parsons agreed that a child would be conceived by Mr Masson providing donor s***m. Mr Masson's evidence was that he believed he would be involved in the child's life and he was recorded on the child's birth certificate as the Father. The child referred to Mr Masson as "Daddy". The parties were friends at the time of the insemination. After the child's birth, he lived with Ms Parsons and her female partner. Mr Masson maintained a close relationship with the child, he saw the child frequently and provided financial support. Mr Masson and the child were described as having an "extremely close and secure attachment relationship" . Ms Parsons informed Mr Masson that she and her partner intended to relocate with the child to New Zealand and Mr Masson commenced Court proceedings seeking orders to prevent the relocation and orders which considered him to be the Father of the child.

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia found that Mr Masson could not be the legal parent of the child pursuant to NSW Legislation which provided that a s***m donor (a person not in a relationship with the mother) could not be considered a parent. The High Court found on appeal that Mr Masson should not merely be considered to be a s***m donor, and accepted that the evidence supported the finding that he would correctly fall under the definition of "parent". The Court stated:
"The ordinary, accepted English meaning of the word 'parent' is a question of fact and degree to be determined according to the ordinary, contemporary understanding of the word 'parent' and the relevant facts and circumstances of the case at hand".

This case highlights the risks associated with using a s***m donor who is known to the couple. It could be open to the donor to argue that they should obtain rights pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 if the donor maintains a parent like relationship with the child.

Reach out if you need help negotiating parenting arrangements!

11/06/2024

It's important to be aware that time limits restrict the time frame you have to bring an action in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Once a time limit has lapsed, a party will be prevented from starting a claim without first applying for leave of the court.

An application for a property/financial matter must be commenced with two years from the date of separation in the case of de facto couples, and within 12 months after a divorce order has taken effect for married couples.

Please reach out if you would like help negotiating your financial arrangements.

19/05/2024

There are enormous benefits to resolving your matter at mediation rather than going to Court. Mediation can be organised and attended in a matter of weeks, it can take several months to reach an interim hearing and YEARS to reach a final hearing in Court. At mediation YOU decide the outcome, if you proceed to Court you are leaving the decision to a third party, and its impossible to predict how the evidence may fall after cross examination and after all expert reports are prepared - mediation provides a swift and certain outcome. Mediation costs a fraction of the cost of going to Court, it is usual for legal fees to reach $50,000 to $100,000 and sometimes more than this, when cases proceed all the way to final hearing (OUCH!). Mediation can also assist in preserving relationships as the proceedings are concluded much faster and the resolution is decided by the parties which can reduce ongoing stress and animosity.

Reach out if your Next Step is Mediation!

12/05/2024

Happy Mother's Day to all Mothers and all Mother figures - we hope everyone has a great Sunday!

04/05/2024

Non-financial contributions such as contributing as parent and homemaker are relevant to "who gets what" in family law property matters. In the case of Mallett v Mallett [1984] HCA 21 and Ferraro & Ferraro [1992] FamCA 64, the following was stated: "Contributions as homemaker and parent should be recognized in a substantial way not merely in a token way". In the case of Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57 the following was stated, "non-financial contributions are no less valuable compared to other financial contributions as a result of high wealth and income".

If you want to avoid the stress, cost and delay of Court proceedings, reach out because it sounds like your next step, is mediation!

Disclaimer: this post contains information not advice.

Next Step Mediation

31/12/2024

12/11/2024

23/09/2024

12/09/2024

03/09/2024

04/08/2024

23/06/2024

18/06/2024

11/06/2024

19/05/2024

12/05/2024

04/05/2024

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category