Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Unfair URGENT hearings in the Fed Mags Court

Are Federal Magistrates hearing too many Urgent matters?

Guests cannot vote in polls

You must select between 1 and 2 options

Have you been hauled into the Federal Magistrates Court for an URGENT HEARING in relation to family law? Did the other parent's allegations about you prove to be untrue? Did it cause you stress and cost a fortune for a Lawyer?

Secretary SPCA said
This is in the wrong area and I will start a separate Topic. The Guest will need to logon as their member account to enable replies to this topic to have proper weight.

There is a view of many who do not get significant and or substantial contact immediately after separation that urgent hearings are appropriate. Many would argue it is an urgent matter to have contact when after all they have likely been having daily contact before separation so why should it be taken away after separation. It will be very interesting to see how this thread unfolds and what ideas posters have in relation to a better system that should be put in place. As a comment I would have thought 6 days in 14 was a fairly reasonable outcome. What sort of time does this poster think the father should have? 1 day in 14? Maybe 2? or perhaps no overnight contact at all… Would be interested to know what the Guest believes this father should have to maintain a close and loving relationship with the child.

Will be happy to watch this topic with interest..
Please help me to change the Family Law in relation to URGENT HEARINGS:

Have you been hauled into The Federal Magistrates Court for an URGENT HEARING in relation to family law?

Did the other parent's allegations about you prove to be untrue? Did it cause you stress and cost a fortune for a Lawyer?

There currently exists a legal loop hole, either parent can file in court for an URGENT HEARING in relation to the child/children, the level of proof they need to provide for family law is less than for criminal law, its based on 'the balance of probabilities'. The alleged fact must be more than merely possible; it must be more likely to exist than not.

It would appear plenty of innocent good parents are being hauled thru the courts for urgent hearings that are not actually urgent matters.

It would also appear that it is well know by Lawyers and the Employees of the Federal Magistrates and Family Courts that the system is being abused.

To get an urgent hearing you need to include a letter with your application, setting out the reasons why an urgent hearing is required. The Court may hear the matter within 24 hours.

The intention of these types of hearing is for safety or protection of a child/children, it can also apply to recovery of a child that has been taken by the other party. Its an honorable idea, but appears to be being abused to get access or quick court orders in relation to child/children, in very not urgent situations.

The Family Law Act requires a court to regard the best interests of the child as the most important consideration when deciding parenting disputes.

Join up to campaign for a change in the Australian law, My name is A***** S****** and this happened to me an URGENT HEARING filed, unjustly.

My poor 20mth old who had never been away from myself or his older brother (11years old) was taken from us 3 nights and days per week. The affect on my toddler is immense.
Secretary SPCA said
I often see this in affidavits and  wonder if there are two people that made this child or is the child simply a possession of one of the parents. What happened to "our toddler" in all of this?
I know I am not the first to have this done and will not be the last. But things need to change in Australia.

My email is: (Withheld pending contact from Member) Phone also withheld.

I believe in people power and I am looking at establishing a "cause" on facebook, running some letters to the editor in the major newspapers. Public support will get this law changed. I live in Townsville North Queensland, but I know this is happening around Australia.

Site Admin said
User name / member starter for this topic is changefamilyl

Re Unseen Guest Post

Guest Posts are not visible to the public until they have been "Validated" by a moderator.

I made this post to explain that if identifying information relating to a person involved in a Family Law matter is included in a post it will not be published as to do so would contravene the Law.

The post which I refer to raised the issue of "Urgent Hearings" in Family Law Matters and their possible abuse. This would be a legimate topic for discussion.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Personally I think that action needs to be taken before as the real problem is that far too many parent's consider that they have the right to abuse a child or children by denying them access to the other parent, very often to exploit them for monetary gain and very often to use them as the tool to reek out their vendetta against the other parent. When society refuses to accept that this as an acceptable action then there would be little need for the courts to be asked to intervene.

Currently this societal need hardly exists and so it is without doubt that there is a great need for children to be better protected than they currently are from these parents so very willing to discount their childrens' humane needs and rights. There is a great deal of evidence that the removal of a parent from a child's life, especially when that removal is then followed by denigration of that removed parent before that child, is likely to resort in that child being at greater risk of harm and of steering a course that will see them fail in society's eyes. As such there is a great deal that can be saved the quicker that action can be taken to restore a meaningful relationship between a child and it's parents. Thus until society starts to intervene I see a greater need for urgent FMC hearings and also for more urgency to be placed upon many matters.
I argue that it is urgent for the child/children regardless of age to maintain contact with the non custodial parent early in the separation. I dont believe it is abusing the court system of processing "urgent matters" with the exception of cases of abuse and neglect are not made a priority as a result.

I have sat on both sides of the fence. As a mother initiating divorce, I was not going to exaserbate an already distraught husband by restricting his contact with his child. I believe that parents restricting the other so early in the separation only sets the tone for future years of sorting through the ups and downs of contact and access. So the sooner this can be address the better, mentally and emotionally for both children and parents.

My current husband had been restricted contact by the mother of his child, it caused him a great amount of distress, and the realilty that this could potentially continue for many many months caused even more distress and started to effect his work and other family life.

I believe the provision of the court hearing cases like this imediately after separation is a positive step towards reducing any emotional, physical, mental stess, inflicted on parents, as well as any potentially disasterous situations. I would like to add also that counselling for both parents individually after the separation is put in place, as part of the urgent court hearing process.
It should always be a matter of urgency to resolve these issues between parents for the childrens sake…I think it is a shame how long the courts can often allow these things to drag on and since we did not file an urgency application ie we had to wait 6 weeks before the first hearing and then 2 months before the ordered family counselling…we are now 5 months down the track from the initial submission and still dealing with the crappy games from a vindictive ex.  But we will persevere with dignity and respect!
Have you been hauled into the Federal Magistrates Court for an URGENT HEARING in relation to family law? Did the other parent's allegations about you prove to be untrue? Did it cause you stress and cost a fortune for a Lawyer?
Yes, yes and yes.

I was also hauled through the FMC, on a single matter that spanned 18 months. The length of time the Court takes is shameful.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets