Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Any review of Rice and Asplund

Hello All,

I am about to undertake mediation as per my Legal advice and I was wondering if anyone is aware of any potential review of family law process in terms of Rice and Asplund. I have two daughters 10 and 7 years and both, but particularly the elder, is determined to come and live with me, my new wife and new baby. My desire is for them both to come to live with me in 2010.

I am concerned about the application of this dated case (Rice and Asplund) and how courts stick so rigidly to it. Moreover, I noticed a parlimentary dicussion on Rice and Asplund in 2006 and was wondering if any change was on the horizon.

The ex and I have a consent order made in 2006 and never contested or altered to date.

Simitar
The 'discussion' in 2006 essentially was to 'toughen up' the Courts into following R&A to prevent an avalanche of new applications.

Yes there is a submission in to the AG -but do not hold your breath on any immediate changes.

All cases are different and the 'Threshold' test can be interpreted differently because of the circumstances of individual cases.


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I note that at a recent meeting with the Attorney General that this issue was raised. What was the feedback?? I understand that the AG would not want to 'open the floodgates' on these matters, but surely some reasonable 'concessions' should be considered to give proper effect to the recent legislative changes.
the spark said
I note that at a recent meeting with the Attorney General that this issue was raised. What was the feedback?? I understand that the AG would not want to 'open the floodgates' on these matters, but surely some reasonable 'concessions' should be considered to give proper effect to the recent legislative changes.

What do you consider are 'reasonable concessions'? Governments do not like retrospective legislation.

As regards proper effect - that is of course what the Courts are supposed to be doing with cases currently before them.


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I guess I was thinking of considering what is in the best interests of the children, which changes as they get older, so perhaps a concession could be to allow a review after, say 5 years. Also I did not initially go through the court, so perhaps again there could some allowance for this, as I can understand that they would not want parents continually going through the courts until they get the outcome they want.
I think there is an argument to be made that children's needs change with age - to some extent that was recognised with the concept of babies being closely linked to their mother's breast . Later though breasts become less important and things like - exposure to a working ethic, discipline, sport, play, intellectual stimulation, different social experiences, extended family,etc become important.

I think an argument can be made - without having to be proscriptive about what ages exactly. In my case i have the kids mainly full time now - which has been much better for them but their earlier years were 50/50 with their mother.

Later as they get older (18+) they may want to move in with their mother again. In reality things do change over time - the whole idea of limiting the definition of changing circumstances was to reduce court cases , cost and stress (wanting parents to 'settle down') - it has nothing to do with the reality of the best interests of the child.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
the spark said
I guess I was thinking of considering what is in the best interests of the children, which changes as they get older, so perhaps a concession could be to allow a review after, say 5 years. Also I did not initially go through the court, so perhaps again there could some allowance for this, as I can understand that they would not want parents continually going through the courts until they get the outcome they want.

You have partly answered your own question. After 5 years there could have been changes some of which may have been 'significant' to overcome a Rice and Asplund hurdle.

You will have read in other forums about the recent SPCA submission to the Attorney General on 'Rice and Asplund'. I will have a chat with SECSPCA about how much of the detail of this can be released. Because this was a non public submission, ie made only to the AG and CJ, I believe the SPCA is waiting for a response to the suggestions that were made before deciding on a more public release of the submission or parts of it.



Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Jon I agree but getting Judges to agree might be another story their minds don't want to hear.

Agog it sounds good but so many of these things take so long it is the next lot of children and cases that get the advantage. Not that that is a bad thing, but how many years work did it take to cause changes to the Family Law Act that Judges are still fighting against and will till they are replaced?

God loves a tryer but can we do something to cause an acceleration of the corrections to judicial behaviour now holding up the existing changes to the Law?
 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets