Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Registrar caught "sleeping with the enemy" ??

 I have filed a complaint to the CJ of FCA . A registrar exercising a judicial function ( inspection of documents) has been sprung engaging in closed email communications with the alienator mothers solicitor at 7 pm the evening before the subpoena hearing the next day in which he alerts the mothers solicitor that he " will need strong persuasion if the ICL continues her objection"  to me inspecting some material. As far as I was concerned he was seeking to enlist the mothers solicitor to make persuasive submissions to assist him to rule against me. She discussed her position during this after business hours exchange and then said "if you would like my views on anything else" please call me before 9.00am the next morning..when the sudpoena hearing resumed. He was not exercising an administrative function. s37A (1) FLA

This Registrar had the benefit of knowing my case as I had faxed through strong  written submissions to him the day earlier when he adjourned the hearing for two days as I appeared by phone.

.He foresaw he would have problems in resisting my application for inspection so he alerted the other side to his need for assistance on the eve of the hearing. He then suggested to me at the subpoena  hearingnext day that I was suggesting "the ICL and the court was combining against me".I didnt know about his dodgy email communications at that stage but obviously his conscience was getting the better of him.

 I sent an email titled "the 3 Amogoes" to the registrar and the ICL and alienators solicitor asking for a please explain. Only the Registrar responded (duh) and said as yet  he hadnt placed some correspondence on the court file that I had sent to the FC. He was threatening me that if I took it any further he would do that..a veiled threat…hows this for the post of the week..I await the whitewash.
I'm not sure that when the Registrar says 'he would require strong persuasion' is necessarily saying anything significant.

How does raising this matter with the Registrar advance your case?

4MYDAUGHTER
As I see it the Registrar in exercising judicial function should not be engaging in any communication whatsoever about the substantive matters involved in the subpoena hearing outside of the hearing proper.

 He falls foul of bias in doing so.

 I also think his misconduct goes beyond bias and goes to the core of proper administration of justice as he must maintain impartiality at all levels. He cant be allowed to confer with one legal representative after hours in an exchange of views and offers of opinions and assistance in the manner that occurred between the two on the eve of a court event…curial complicity ?

His comment is suggestive of pre judgement, as he alludes to the requisite strength of evidence that he perceives he will need to maintain the continuation of the objection that he granted to the ICL in chambers and without notice of her application for restriction of inspection to other parties . He didnt allow other parties a right to be heard in her exparte application for restriction initially. The ICL led no evidence compromising safety of witnesses she just said the child participated in a record of interview, which everyone knew.

Because he is the only registrar within 1000 kilometers he will be involved in my case so I need to shift him because he has obviously taken a position adverse to my interests and has an affiliation with the other side.
Um… in respect of Objections to Subpoena matters, I've often communicated with the FC Registrar's about those matters. I can't see much in the email communication that is seems untoward. The Registrar is clearly stating that he/she is currently favouring the position of the ICL. Its helpful feedback really - because at least the parties know where they stand in relation to the objection.

How did you come by the email?

I've read some of your posts today. You seem to think that the system is controlled by woman for the purpose of advancing the cause of mothers. You're asserting that the Registrar is plotting against you.

I don't think these beliefs are going to serve or assist you in gaining shared care arrangements. In fact such beliefs will likely hinder your ability to run your case effectively and undermine your chances of success.

Mix these beliefs with arguments about Parental Alienation - and I think your chances of success are low.

I'm not explaining myself too well today to probably get my message across.




4MYDAUGHTER
The untoward  circumstance is a registrar is exercising a judicial function (not an administrative function ) when dealing with rights of inspection so as a judicial officer he cannot be engaging in closed communications after business hours on the eve of a subpoena hearing with the lawyer of one of the parties alerting her that he needs strong persuasion to sustain an objection which he allowed the ICL in an exparte hearing by way of phonecall  without notice to the other parties a week earlier.

 He was tacitly alerting the other sides lawyer to deliver up some good arguments the next day to assist him to sustain the objection. When he was caught out by inadvertent discovery of the email by the other sides lawyer he sends an email to the SRL threatening to place on the file correspondence that he claimed he  had not yet placed on the file regarding communications between the SRL and the family consultant..a veiled threat to cause the SRL to back off…its not innocent administrative engagement is it ??

Exercise of judicial function should ocurr in the presence of all parties in the courtroom, not after work privately with one of them discussing substantive matters in closed emails…unless one is practising in Bolivia
You seem to be way out of left field here. If you are an SRL you need to follow the principal that you have no legal rights in relation to communications with any of the other participants i.e the ICL,solicitors etc. Communication with you is at their discretion and pleasure unless there are directions. IF you are only at the stage of subpoena material then are you endearing yourself to the court and ICL already at this early time?

The really successful SRL people are those who prepare well, understand the law in relation to the sections they are arguing, take advice from the registry/court, listen intently and have been to numerous hearings to see how it all works. Those who work up some sort of standard of respect do very well. If you antagonise and disrupt things before you even start expect little help along the way. Therea re alos procedures and customs that need to be adhered to …

What is unreasonable about a Registrar making any sort of comment to the lawyer of one of the parties alerting her that he needs strong persuasion to sustain an objection. Some of the lawyers are very poorly prepared and need a bit of a shunt at times to get themselves into a position they can present something meaningful and worthwhile. If the argument was strong on the other side why would there be any worry.

You spelt Amigos wrongly as well, so you might give the CJ a laugh but you wrote to the wrong person. You should have written to the Director Richard Foster.
Sami said
Only the Registrar responded (duh) and said as yet  he hadnt placed some correspondence on the court file that I had sent to the FC. He was threatening me that if I took it any further he would do that..a veiled threat…hows this for the post of the week..I await the whitewash.
I didn't follow that at all easily. Was the Registrar threatening you that he would place your correspondence on the file if you took a complaint further? It all sounds like you are heading down a slippery slope to nowhere.

Have you actually spoken to any SRL's who have been successful? What is the general thrust of the matter you are running in the Family Court (WITHOUT giving any details that can identify ANY parties). Perhaps the members might give some ideas from their experiences.

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
 
SAMI …. so what? The handling of Objections to Subpoena is often a really loose affair.

Move on.

4MYDAUGHTER
I appreciate your comments.I am not stuck on the Registrar issue.

I see disregard for proper performance of judicial function and I have no compunction in exposing this.

The Registrar was not performing a mere administrative function, if he was I would agree with all your comments.

 Its interesting to see how entrenched the culture really is, such that people have lost track of the distiction between basic legal functions.

I find the "cultural " isolation of SRL's very discriminating. I expect a challenge against the manner in which the FLAoperates i.e. that it effectively discriminates against a section of society, SLR 's would be concerning to the culture.

Can someone  please point me to the rules or sections of the Act that prohibit communications between SRL and other ?
@Sami … I interested to know how you got the email?

In any event, as posted previously, Objections to Subpoena are a bit of a loose affair. You probably should have been copied in on the email communications, but I'm assuming you got it eventually.

If the 'opposition' is not copying you in on emails - well - it sets a precedent - doesn't it. If that's how they're playing ball - then perhaps you can send emails to the registrar without copying the other party? But I'd suggest you follow the rules.

I wouldn't get hang up on this issue. You've raised the issue and put the Registrar and opposition on 'Notice'. I think you've made your point.

Going beyond that - you risk making an enemy of the Registrar. Word spreads within the court. You don't want staff reacting to you - "Oh no. Its that's guy. He's make life difficult."

Cut the Registrar some slack and he might feel he owes you.

You need to be smart about what you're doing. Your opposition is the Mother and her solicitor. Not the court or the staff.

Once again, the Registrars comment - "I will need strong persuasion if the ICL continues her objection" - I don't read anything untoward in that at all.

I read his comment to mean - he's favouring the ICL's position and NOT favouring arguments advanced by the Mother.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to Objections to subpoena - EVERYONE needs to formulate strong and compelling arguments - especially when it comes to overcoming a position adopted by the ICL. It's goes without saying.

My friend - I think they've got the wrong end of the stick.

4MYDAUGHTER
sami said
I appreciate your comments.I am not stuck on the Registrar issue.
From reading all you have written I get a view that you are one angry litigant and will do all you can to piss off the establishment the Registry and the Registrar. If you continue down this path you will get no where in the judicial system. You have to build a rapport with the people who will help you. The Registry has many people who will help you along the way if you work with them.
sami said
I see disregard for proper performance of judicial function and I have no compunction in exposing this.

The Registrar was not performing a mere administrative function, if he was I would agree with all your comments.
I would like you to tell me why the Judicial Officer is unable to tell the solicitor to shape up because clearly he is not convinced and is leaning elsewhere. He is giving the solicitor every opportunity to sharpen up her argument and whether or not he will accept that is for another day. There is nothing to be concerned about with this.
sami said
Its interesting to see how entrenched the culture really is, such that people have lost track of the distiction between basic legal functions.

I find the "cultural "isolation of SRL's very discriminating. I expect a challenge against the manner in which the FLA operates i.e. that it effectively discriminates against a section of society, SLR 's would be concerning to the culture.
Being a A Self Represented Litigant is a difficult job. They are forced into reading law and understanding the FL Act very rapidly. They are usually given a fair amount of leeway and consideration but at the end of the day the Act is administered and adjudicated on the written words and paragraphs and it is about precedent, solid argument, showing a flexible and child focussed view and working I repeat WORKING with the Judicial officers regardless of what position they hold. You can listen to what you are being told or not but I can assure you that working WITH the Registry and Court will get you much better results. You are not a trained lawyer, and it appears so very adversarial, one has to wonder how are you going to go when you actually get to the case and you required to negotiate something.

One thing you could probably read is a very good booklet Self Represented Litigants ~ A Challenge prepared by Justice John Faulks (now DCJ) in 2002. DOI 1-920866-00-0…. The Family Court of Australia was one of the first courts to recognise the challenge represented by the increasing numbers of litigants who, either by choice or necessity are self-represented in proceedings before it. As a consequence, the Self-represented Litigants - a Challenge project was set up. This project has now completed the first phase of its operations. At the beginning of the process the project determined that it should advance its activities in three main directions  Information, collaboration and Innovation. These three headings corresponded in more colloquial terms to the challenge of getting self-representing litigants lawyers, making them lawyers or changing the system. Research undertaken in conjunction with and at the request of the Court has indicated that (in first instance) 3040 per cent of the matters involve litigants who are self represented at some point. The analysis of this phenomenon and the development of strategies to meet the challenge have resulted in many initiatives which are reflected in this report. It was never expected and indeed cannot be expected that the Court will finish the process of designing and reforming its supply of information and procedures to take account of the changing face of litigation and the needs of those who are self-represented. So far we have made a substantial start and have recognised that this process involves much more than simply the handing out of a "kit" at the time of the hearing. It is rather the provision of relevant information in a comprehensible and comprehensive form at appropriate times during the proceedings. This is consistent with and supportive of the Court's objectives to find the most appropriate way to resolve disputes

Deputy Chief Justice Faulks has done a lot of work for Self Represented Litigants and the Family Court(s) recognise the importance of good material for them. Try and locate the full booklet and have a read.
sami said
Can someone please point me to the rules or sections of the Act that prohibit communications between SRL and other ?
The FLA is about children. It is not about you communicating with solicitors. Nothing prohibits communications with anyone. The Act does little to give any SRL guidance in what you might do or not as the case may be. The question is will anyone read them, consider them, or take any notice of them that is the question you need to ask yourself. My experience in SRL communications with the legal fraternity is at large unless you are in the "Profession" your phone calls will not be returned, your letters will be ignored, your tirades and verbal escapades will just be used against you and in general you will not get a good experience. There are exceptions to this where some do attempt to broker an agreement early on but in the main there is no obligation to talk to you as they act for the other party. The Law Society NSW rules are very clear on this and contact with you could not only lead to a conflict of interest but disciplinary action and being struck off.

Can a solicitor communicate with another solicitor's client?
Usually, no. However, Rule 31 of the Revised NSW Practitioners Guide : Professional Conduct and Practice Rules permits very limited communications in the circumstances shown in that Rule.

The duty to the client is often described as paramount. This obviously means that in conducting a matter for a client your primary consideration is the clients best interests, not those of the opposing party or anyone else including yourself.

Also

A.54. A practitioner must not deal directly with the opponents client unless:
(a) the opponent has previously consented;
(b) the practitioner believes on reasonable grounds that:
(i) the circumstances are so urgent as to require the practitioner to do so;
and
(ii) the dealing would not be unfair to the opponents client; or
(c ) the substance of the dealing is solely to enquire whether the person is represented and, if so, by whom.

Rules A51 to A58 deal with issues of fairness to an opponent: not misleading, not dealing directly with the opponents client

There are also a  range of revised rules:

10.1 A practitioner must not, in any dealings with a client
10.1.1 allow the interests of the practitioner or an associate of the practitioner to conflict with those of the client;
10.1.2 exercise any undue influence intended to dispose the client to benefit the practitioner in excess of the practitioners fair remuneration for the legal services provided to the client;
10.2 A practitioner must not accept instructions to act for a person in any proceedings or transaction affecting or related to any legal or equitable right or entitlement or interest in property, or continue to act for a person engaged in such proceedings or  transaction when the practitioner is, or becomes, aware that the persons interest in the proceedings or transaction is, or would be, in conflict with the practitioners own interest or the interest of an associate.

Before you call up one of the solicitors and give them a serve you might pause, as you could well be led into a situation that will not help your case.

So far all we have read about your situation is you have a view the Registrar has been errant and you appear to be plucking at suspicious technical straws before anything has actually happened. I, like 4mydaughter, have an interest in how you got hold of the Registrar communication to the solicitor on the other side.  

What perplexes me about your situation is, that not once, have you asked for guidance, assistance, information, case histories, any precedent to support an argument, or ANY single shred of advice in relation to any aspect of your case that relates to parenting, child focussed outcomes or anything to do with getting a proper parenting outcome. If you had not mentioned you were complaining to the Chief Justice in the Family Court I may have thought you might be running a Civil matter. My friend get yourself a reality check , work with members on the site who are EXTREMELY well informed about being SRL's and if you want any advice and, but may not like it, work with the many good people in the Registry's who can help you along the way.


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
 
The FLA is discriminatory legislation in that it has not overcome the professional rules which hold SRL's to ransom.

It is not a level playing field.

SRl's get statutorily discriminated against by both pieces of legislation. Someone should take the issue to the high court and tip the FLA on its head.
@Sami… time to take a reality check.

You're over-analysing everything and arriving at erroneous/spurious conclusions.

You need to shift your perspective.

Don't think about your matter for a while - take some time-out for yourself. Spend Easter relaxing.


4MYDAUGHTER
 ok…I got the email in an inadvertant disclosure by the mothers lawyer when I asked for copies of correspondence between her and ICL.

Ok as to my case…what happens at the interim hearing(IH) ? How do I get to make submissions? I tried to submit written submissions for the IH and ran into a trap.

 I had filed all my material. I handed up submissions for the IH at a case management hearing and next there was an order that I serve my submissions on the other side 4 weeks before the IH date and before they filed thei rlast affidavit for the IH…now that sounded like handing my case up on a plate for it to be picked over and pulled apart..so I refused  to comply with that order !!…i dont understand.
Learn to be silent.
Let your
quiet mind
listen and absorb.

PYTHAGORAS
(580.B.C.-500 B.C.)
Hand up your submissions for the Interim Hearing on the day. I don't believe there is a requirement to hand up a submission document fro an IH anyway.

4MYDAUGHTER
 Ok thanks.4md.I am really grateful for your assistance..thanks mate. thanks so much for all.

I was going to do that, han dup at IH but the problem was the IH is by video link because its a Sydney circuit judge so I thought I would be helpful and hand my written submissions while he was on circuit intending them to be kept on file and read at the IH ..instead he tries to shaft me !!! and orders me to hand them on a plate to the other side 4 weeks in advance…I thought I was in a court not an alley !!! I know I am in an alley now ..you have to wise up fast in this game.
sami said
…..what happens at the interim hearing(IH) ? How do I get to make submissions? I tried to submit written submissions for the IH and ran into a trap.
The only trap is you are not stopping long enough to take some instruction. The Court clearly sets out the process and Interim Hearings are based primarily on the papers. There are a range of reasons for this and usually a number of cases are dealt with on the same day. To be able to work the process requires sufficient time for both parties to receive the documents which includes what the other party is seeking and related affidavits. You wont be able to hand anything up on the day (UNLESS you get leave of the Court to do so and you will need convincing argument and the Court will ask if you have served that material in sufficient time on teh other party) as the other side requires sufficient time to review the material.
sami said
I had filed all my material. I handed up submissions for the IH at a case management hearing and next there was an order that I serve my submissions on the other side 4 weeks before the IH date and before they filed their last affidavit for the IH…now that sounded like handing my case up on a plate for it to be picked over and pulled apart..so I refused to comply with that order !!…i don't understand.
Its all about full disclosure of issues and the good thing for you is that you can pick over THEIR material and find errors, omissions, falsities and fabrications. Its a time when you see what the plans are from the other side and are able to respond, plan and prepare. You should not be disappointed. Spend a little time reading up on the process. Its all on the Family Courts web sites. If you follow the process that is clearly laid out two things will happen. Firstly you won't be surprised, secondly the process will work smoothly for you and most importantly as you gain confidence (because things are going along as the process is set down) you will focus more on the key parenting matters; which quite frankly is what this is all about anyway. Try and change your stance on all of this and treat the Judiciary, the Registry as people who can assist you not "shaft you".

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
 
secretary…you dont seem to understand what I have described.

 I havein fact filed all my affidavit material for the IH.

I asked to hand up written case submissions- being legal argument around certain facts and raising relevant facts material to  the relevant s60cc considerations.

Why was I ordered to serve my legal arguments on the other side before they had filed their final affidavit?

I was effectively directed to hand my final submissions ( not affidavit) up before the other side had filed all their material !!

This would never happen in any other court and shouldnt happen in the FC…

closing submissions are for the judge on the day of the hearing..affidavit material is for the other side in advance of the hearing
Its about timing

Case submissions need to be dealt with either at FINAL hearing for FINAL orders or in affidavit or in amended INTERIM order documents. An Interim Hearing is not at all like the Final Hearing. ALL the main  facts should be raised in your documents already for the Interim Hearing. I am not quite sure what material you are handing up OVER AND ABOVE the material you have sent in on the forms for the Interim hearing. Because you are not represented it is highly unlikely you will even get to speak to the Judicial officer at an Interim hearing and often telephone conferences can be managed for Interims between solicitors and the Judicial Officer…

Once they file their finals you can always file a response anyway so what's the big deal here? I must be missing something. Have you made application to join the SRL-R group?

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
 
 As I said I have filed all my evidentiary material in Affidavits. I simply want to submit my submissions as opposed to my evidence so that I can get written submissions into the record for the interim hearing determination. If I had a lawyer how would they present submissions at an interim hearing?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets