Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Family Court's secret code word - ROSA

There was a case called Rosa v Rosa. In this case, the High Court was asked to determine the construction of s 65DAA FLA - ie. Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances. Basically, the High Court backed up the Family Court's ability to withhold children from parents, regardless of any cause.

If you hear 'ROSA' mentioned in court, get ready to lose your kids. It mainly applies to fathers, particularly when domestic violence and child abuse allegations are made (even without evidence).

www.domesticviolencemethod.com
OMG - they have changed the secret code word again! What was wrong with "marmalade"? It always got me out of jam.....

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Last time I watched Blackhawk Down the code word was "Irene"

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
The question to be determined in the Mt ISA case and which was considered in great detail by the High Court was simply this and that is "Reasonable Practicality". Was it reasonably practical under the circumstances. You CANNOT make the statement 'Basically, the High Court backed up the Family Court's ability to withhold children from parents, regardless of any cause.' without a detailed look at what were firstly the circumstances and secondly consider the reasons of the judgment in detail.

If you think sitting in a caravan park thousands of kilometres away from friends and family with no money, no support and a young child to take care of, as the father was working much of the time, is what was intended under s65DAA then it may pay to have a long and hard think about that. s65DAA requires some practicality. for example you cannot suggest a shared parenting operation of 50/50 week about will work between Sydney and Mt ISA. It is not practicable.

What the high court did was consider and set out a more detailed analysis and give clarity on what reasonably practicable in s65DAA actually means. The courts, when looking to 65DAA must also consider whether such an order would be reasonably practicable taking into account the reality of the parents' circumstances, such as the availability of affordable and appropriate housing, employment and family support, as well as the impact of the proposed orders on the emotional and mental health and wellbeing of each of the parents.

ROSA v ROSA is not on its own, going to determine the time you have with children.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Actually barrister etc in Family Court do use one word stuff which could easily be interpreted as a code  ( code word use ). Done by them whilst looking earnestly at a Judge whom often shakes his head back at them. Saves a big conversation I guess as well as being a bit shifty.

As for Rosa vs Rosa.    Truth is that parent did not get that outcome until they had first tried a different path and then failed. Now, that failure may well have been contrived by them ie , intentional or,   caused by ignorance ie didn't know how to manage any better.
The original post had been both justifiably ridiculed and explained by senior and very legally experienced members of this site. The original post is from someone who does not understand what really occurs in the Court.

The Court and Legal fraternity will often use shorthand descriptions of precedents in Court, 'Rosa' to indicate there are practicality issues, 'Rice and Asplund' to indicate change of circumstance issues, the list can go on and on. If someone does not listen they are going to miss important pointers during the progression of a case.

Counsel do use certain code words to enable a Judge to shake their heads, the most common is "My client has asked to me to ask you" - which means I am going to ask a bloody stupid question on behalf of my client so please dont jump down my throat. These codes are not secret and there are many, look up "With respect", "with great respect", "with the greatest of respect". Some have been documented in use for over a hundred years.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets