Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Collateral use of Family Court documents

Has anyone else had Family Court documents used for a collateral Purpose

Guests cannot vote in polls

The integrity of the Family Court is seriously in question. If litigants knew that their documents and evidence produced to the Family Court could be used by investigation and insurance companies with no restraint this process will fail as litigants will

I commenced Family Court proceedings in 1997. In about 2000 I became aware that Workcover corporation of South Australia were collecting and using documents relating to Family Court proceedings for the management and investigation of my claim.

In March 2004 my ex-wife appeared on Channel Sevens today tonight program and displayed annexures being medical reports etc I had supplied in Family Court proceedings to support her allegations that I was never injured at work.

In April of 2004 after eventually receiving enough proof of this fact I complained to the Federal Police and the Family Court of Australia about the collateral use of documents relating to the Custodial Proceedings of my infant child for the management and investigation of my Workers Compensation claim by Workcover its service providers and Chubb Corporation and the use of them by Channel Seven.

There is also evidence to support the fact that Workcover also collected information from my Ex-wife knowing that she was using my infant child as a source of information and as an informant for Workcover. The child being as young as 4 years old when this commenced up until the age of 12. Contact ceased with his mother on a permanent basis after the child became aware that he was being used as a pawn in the investigations of his father. My son?s privacy has clearly been violated and his innocence exploited and manipulated by my very estranged ex-wife and indeed Workcover and its investigators.

In March 2005 I was forced to seek further interim injunctions against Workcover and the child's mother to stop the use of documents for collateral purposes because it was evident that these acts and the collateral use of the documents had continued after the proceedings for injunctions had initially commenced in April 2004.

Unfortunately I could not get injunctions against Workcover because I was advised they were not a party to the proceedings. So Workcover blatantly continued to use the information and the Affidavits and annexures.

By this stage the Federal Police and the Family Court had all advised there was nothing they could do about it. Stating a lack or resources as the reason. At the hearing of the injunction the Justice hearing the matter stated to the Solicitors acting for Workcover that such use was a contempt of the Family Court.

Workcover even commenced proceedings against me in the Magistrates court alleging dishonesty after I complained about the use. The evidence presented in the court was based almost entirely on information gained by Workcover through my son and the custodial proceedings being information I was required to produce by order of the Family Court to my ex-wife.

The actions of Workcover have continued despite the rules of the Family Court stating otherwise.
The Family Law Rules state.

 FAMILY LAW RULES 2004 - RULE 13.07 Duty of disclosure ? documents

The duty of disclosure applies to each document that:

(a) is or has been in the possession, or under the control, of the party disclosing the document; and

(b) is relevant to an issue in the case.

Note 1 For documents that parties must produce to the court:

(a) on the first court date for a Maintenance Application, see rule 4.15;

(b) on the first court date for a child support application or appeal, see rule 4.26 (2);

c) at a conference in a property case, see Part 12.2; and

(d) at a trial, see Chapters 15 and 16.

Note 2 Rule 13.15 provides that a party must file a written notice about the party?s duty of disclosure.

Note 3 Rule 15.76 provides that a party may give another party a notice to produce a specified document at a hearing or trial.

Note 4 A document disclosed to a party must be used for the purposes of the case only and must not be used for any other purpose without the consent of the other party or an order.

Schedule 1 of the Family Law Rules also states.

4 Disclosure and exchange of correspondence

(8) Parties must not use a document disclosed by another party for a purpose other than the resolution or determination of the dispute to which the disclosure of the document relates.

(9) Documents produced by a person to another person in compliance with the pre-action procedures are taken to have been produced on the basis of an undertaking from the party receiving the documents that the documents will be used for the purpose of the case only.
Given that the Family Court Rules clearly prohibit such actions I would like to know if anyone can help..

The Federal Police say they have no resources and its a Family Court problem, The Family Court have advised they can not assist me yet they ordered me to produce the documents to the other party and thus should retain control over them.

Who is responsible for commencing Contempt proceedings against Workcover and Channel Seven given that no government department has even investigated the matter despite my continued complaints for over three years?

The seriousness of this issue goes to the integrity of the Family Court. If litigants knew that their documents and evidence produced to the Family Court could be used by investigation and insurance companies with no restraint this process will fail as litigants will simply stop providing documents for fear of them being used against them for some unknown purpose at any time in the future.

Any suggestions and help would be sincerely appreciated.  :(
Have you looked at Section 121 of the FLA re non-disclosure?

If not it may be another avenue to explore.

From memory, you report/complain direct to the AG (Philip Ruddock).  Maybe he has the resources!





I wish it was that simple.

Thanks Dad4life for your response.

Unfortunately getting action out of some of these government departments is really difficult.

I have more to add to this saga . I have written and contacted the Attorney Generals department on many occasions. My complaints commenced a number of years ago.

Initially I got a response from the AGD advising how sorry they were to hear of my experience in the Family Court and that they could not assist me further.

I have attempted to pursue the matter under Section 121 of the Family Law Act.

In desperation I actually lodged an application in the courts outlining a breach of section 121 and at the same time made application for leave from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute. The CDPP advised they would not grant me leave because the Federal Police had not investigated the matter. (And yet the Federal Police refused to investigate the matter because they claimed no offence had been committed and they had limited resources in any case to actually investigate the matter). The Justice refused to hear my application on that basis.

I made another application and applied for an injunction in the court and was advised I could not injunct Workcover because they were not a party to the proceedings.

Workcover knew they were committing a contempt and just blatantly continued on in their ways stil using the Family Court Material.

I got a lawyer to write to the Attorney General some time ago and they actually referred the matter to the Federal Police. Again the Federal Police advised they had no resources and that it was a matter for the family court.
I
 have re sent my concerns to the AGD and also to the Federal Minister for Justice Senator Johnston's office for their attention.

I will be sure to keep thispost updated if I get any responses but in the meantime also look forward to any assistance anyone can give me as to what direction or actions I may be able to take in what has been a dreadful Family Court Saga.  :(

Last edit: by OneRingRules

I have missed this post and am most interested in taking this matter up as an issue on the FaCSIA register. The matter would be referred to the AG's but would at least be on a master register. We can follow this up. The next major meeting is Feb 2008 but in the meantime can you send me the letter your solicitor sent to the previous AG and the response. You can attach these documents in a private post to me. Click on "whisper" and create a personal topic with me.

The responses you have had are simply not adequate based on the material you have outlined. It requires further investigation and a proper response.   O_o

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
 
PLease let me know if the images did not come out clearly. I have plenty more correspondence since these.
JT rest assured you are not alone, the Federal Police (AFP) used the lack of resources and return to the Family Court excuse on me to.

The AG recommended I return to the AFP for the same response.

The duty of the AFP is the investigation of the proper administration of the laws of the Commonwealth, and where VIPs like judges are concerned, due to the public interest aspect, required to pass requests for investigation of VIPs to the AG for assessment.

I have found this does not happen and the issues go round and round, the law is breached and never prosecuted.

Be strong JT - A second reading of what was the "Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2005" has been claimed to me as being foreshadowed for early this year.

Check out this site as it looks like our next step in the line of seeking justice,
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/petitions/index.htm
Senate Petitions

It is the right of any person or organisation to petition Parliament to obtain redress of grievances, or to ask it take some action or not to do something that is contemplated. The right to petition Parliament is of great antiquity.

The presentation of a petition to the Senate is a proceeding in Parliament and is protected by parliamentary privilege.

The publication of a petition before presentation is not similarly protected. (See Chapter 2, Australian Senate Practice, Parliamentary Privilege, Circulation of petitions.)
Site Admin said
I noted that your links are not being posted correctly. This is because you are using some sort of editor that is not compatible with HTML and Comcode (next gen HTML) The best way to post links is either to use the links icon "insert web link" if the WYSIWIG editor is ON or if it is off use the Insert HTML link. Paste your text in with the WYSIWIG editor turned OFF.You can see these buttons at the top of the editor screens. I also see you are talking about the President of the Senate. I am not sure that is a real position. Are you talking about the Australian Senate?
Lodging a petition might be your best direction as it looks like mine, the Proper Administration of Justice is an issue of great public importance and as is said at "When is a petition not a petition? at
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/guides/briefno21.htm

The President may nonetheless approve the presentation of the document as a petition if the President is satisfied that exceptional circumstances warrant its presentation
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/standing_orders/b10.htm#69

standing order 69(8)? Circumstances which would seem to qualify as exceptional might be, for example, that the petition refers to a serious grievance of injustice to which the Senate should give immediate attention, or that there is no other way in which the document can be treated so as to bring it to notice.

I hope to file under the serious grievance of injustice are; (1) "The granting of a judge Judicial Immunity" to defeat a Constitutional Condition of Tenure and section 22 of the Family Law Act 1975 of "Proved  misbehaviour".  (2) "The Proving of Judicial Misbehaviour" of Justice Mushin of the FamCA.
Hmm petition seems interesting way to go.

Seems nothing else is about to push anyone along.
69 - Presentation of petitions
Subsection 8

"A petition not certified under paragraph (1) may be presented in accordance with this standing order with the approval of the President if the President is satisfied that exceptional circumstances warrant its presentation."

Maybe the site admin should talk to the Senate about the use of the word President, as it is they who use the word and I have just reproduced their word. I am but a dumb SRL caused to go to the High Court and Senate for justice, the High Court appear to be refusing to allow me to proceed and cause an SRL a prejudice of a denial of justice like not undoing the immunity granted Mushin to prevent an ability of "Proved Misbehaviour" to occur and Justice prevail with the removal of a Judge who should never have been allowed near the FamCA in my view.

When the "Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2005" watch the complaints get filed and judges start running for cover like Mushin and Bryant.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets