Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Where Shared Responsibility negotiations fail - Decision defaults to one Parent

Justice Cronin defined the limits of Shared Responsibilty, at least in relation to the choice of School.

In Orders made in the FCoA in Febuary this year (2007), Justice Cronin defined the limits of Shared Responsibilty, at least in relation to the choice of School. The orders state that the Parents shall consult, and failing agreement use mediation to facilitate agreement and failing agreement, THE MOTHER SHALL DECIDE. In my opinion it is a natural consequense to define a default position, particularly in the context of this case.

Attachment
Charles & Charles

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
oneadadc said
In Orders made in the FCoA in Febuary this year (2007), Justice Cronin defined the limits of Shared Responsibilty, at least in relation to the choice of School. The orders state that the Parents shall consult, and failing agreement use mediation to facilitate agreement and failing agreement, THE MOTHER SHALL DECIDE. In my opinion it is a natural consequense to define a default position, particularly in the context of this case.

Thanks for this post. It was only a matter of time before a Justice decided to push the legislation back toward the rear end of the Phoenix waiting in the wings. The act is very clear about this. If the mother does not consult then there are severe penalties. There was never any intention to leave or to get back to teh old status quo "The Mother decides" as a final postion here… The default position is clear. There is a rebutable presumption in place of shared parental responsibility. If you get there and over that bar you get certain privileges and the consulting is one forced upon the other party… Did anyone read the explanatory memorandum here?  :(


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
 

Perhaps I was not clear enough!

In this case, at least the impression I get after reading the judgement is that mum is being bombarded with "instructions" to the stage where it borders on harassment.

Yes, this judgement opens the door for similar default clauses. Only time will tell whether it becomes generic. That would become a grave concern.



And if you are refering to the parliamentary explanatory memorandum associted with the ammendments to the family law act, Chief Justice Bryant made the point in her speach to last years Family law conferenece in Perth. Judges see the independence of the Judiciary as sacrosant and while the courts do not operate in a vacume (a debatable point on occasions) the law is their main guide and sacred talisman.

What remains gravely concerning is that the courts see the Law as a living and sacred entity. What they fail to understand is that without the people "the Law becomes an abstract concept with absolutely no purpose".

It is definitely time for a really close look at case law and its use. It remains a somewhat rediculous concept when Judgements from 100's of years ago are quoted in support of a judgement in a modern society.






For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
oneadadc said
What remains gravely concerning is that the courts see the Law as a living and sacred entity. What they fail to understand is that without the people "the Law becomes an abstract concept with absolutely no purpose".
It is definitely time for a really close look at case law and its use. It remains a somewhat rediculous concept when Judgements from 100's of years ago are quoted in support of a judgement in a modern society.

I will contact the AG's office and find out what the status is on the promised enquiry on case law as the SPCA completely agrees with you.

Site Director
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets