Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Which Courts are serviced by the SRL-R group

Discussion relating to which courts in which states are serviced

Apart from Parammatta and Sydney (Goulburn St) Family and Federal Magistrates courts… does the SRL-R group assist further afield?
Have you any experience with local court families sessions?  :christmas:

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
 
*Sydney, Parramatta, Newcastle, Wollongong, Adelaide, Melbourne and the Family Court of WA.
No involvement in local court issues unless they relate to a matter that is to be transferred to the FCoA or FMC

*Brisbane, Darwin and Canberra from February 2007

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 would say that is a very impressive list of coverage and all credit to the group that you are able to assist in the jurisdictions listed in the topic.
Have also read your community pages and it seems definitely worthwhile joining the group if you are self represented in any matter.

The advice given would be invaluable and give someone starting in the court systems an excellent grounding and basic knowledge.

Your services and guidance coupled with the new Family Law legislation and new case procedures should enable significantly better parenting outcomes than we have been able to achieve previously.  :christmas:

Last edit: by OneRingRules


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_SPCA said
Apart from Parammatta and Sydney (Goulburn St) Family and Federal Magistrates courts… does the SRL-R group assist further afield?
Have you any experience with local court families sessions?  :christmas:
 
The SRL R effort is severely limited due to the time constraints on the 'Helpers', and perhaps on the training methods involved from what I could see.
There may be as many as 8 active Helpers at any one time, although possibly twice that number are apparently available intermittently. That may seem like a small number when you do a little arithmetic on the number of cases and the training methods involved. A good question would be to find an estimate of the total number of cases before the FCoA and FMC in the approximately 70% of cases that may possibly involve the SRL R Helpers (based on the fact that about 70% of the population lives in the crescent between Melbourne and Sydney.)
Because the training methods of SRL R are based on the 5-7% of the population that are Aural-Verbal (Listening and Reading) learners, the numbers begin to approach a reasonable absolute figure.
Giving away a few obvious assumptions to use the simplest reference points, 5-7% of 70% is 3.5 to 4.9% of the total who are realistic candidates for SRL R training - assuming the litigants whose cases reach the two federal courts are a population reflecting the makeup of the general population - which many would say is at least debatable. A popular saying around the courthouse is "Ten percent of the population is mentally ill. Ten percent of cases end up in the Family Courts. - Do the math."

Here are the stats from the FCoA site.

Applications for Final Orders filed at registries in the Family Court of Australia
Year             Adelaide     Brisbane Canberra Dandenong Darwin Tasmania Melbourne Newcastle Parramatta     Sydney Townsville     Total
1998/1999     2748         3636         742         1778         248     818         4319         1328         2556                 2614     511             21298
1999/2000     2743         3603         698         1741         298     852         4534         1445         2492                 2749     784             21939
2000/2001     2667         2859         548         1769         180     704         4299         1279         2104                 2766     587             19762
2001/2002     2486         2986         594         1427           97     507         3403         1035         2062                 2747     601             17945
2002/2003     2277         2564         418         1195           44      621         3307         1169         1662                 2821     617             16695
2003/2004     1885         2957         342          947            30      590         2862           671         1418                 2374     612             14688
5% of                94           149                                                                      143                              71                   119                           734 (broad reference)
 2003/2004

As you can see, the regions of heaviest activity are well covered by SRL R. Although this approximation, based on 5% as an average, reflects those who may have the aptitude to work with the Helpers of SRL R, there are many other factors which come into play: attitude, access to the Internet, physical and mental health, etc.
The group is easily stretched to the limit (and this estimation only reflects Final Orders before the FCoA, not cases before the FMC.)

I'm offering these figures hopefully as a basis for further constructive discussion about the SRL R. I am led to believe SRL R has kept records which would reveal its capacity as compared to this estimate of the need. As you can see from this estimate, however, the efforts of 8-16 Helpers may be severely strained to service even the estimated 576 in their primary coverage areas. That would mean 72 litigants per year for each of the 8 full-time Helpers each year; possibly as few as 36 if the part-time Helpers were to contribute full time in a year.
(You'll also notice that the number of Final Orders has been consistently dropping over the period.)

PaulD
:ninja:

Which Courts are Serviced

I find the post by Amoranthus somewhat confusing; there is some praise for the helpers and then a very strong implied criticism about their methods. From the post it appears the writer has either limited knowledge about the different and effective methods of instructing people and or the true needs or problems of self represented people.

Firstly my background, I have been involved in 'designing' adult education programs and courses for a number of years, in both TAFE and with commercial organisations. I have been self represented for almost nine months in a lengthy and still continuing Family Court battle. For the past six months these people have been providing assistance to me. I think I can therefore comment about the effectiveness of their methods.

They have never used the word 'training' to me or in their literature, what they focus on is the acquisition of various skills and knowledge to make someone competent. In fact they let me know very early on that the MRA does in fact have structured training courses. These people adopt a different approach based on what time I have available.

I have no idea where the very odd 5-7% figure of so called Aural Visual learners comes from. This is not a term commonly used in this Country. In fact this figure would put someone in the 'very severe educationally sub normal categories'. People acquire knowledge, education, training or skills or whatever one may wish to call it by a variety of methods, all in different measures and parts according to the end target. The four main categories are in fact, listening, reading, observation and participation and each has subsets. The last is participation which is the main area of actually being a part of and the practice of the 'task'. The four main areas apply to 100% of the population - the amount of each particular type of 'education' is determined by the task and the individuals own abilities.

These people put me very early on to a path which I now clearly appreciate led a very logical path to the skills and knowledge I would need (and have already partially used) They were quite emphatic about observation and participation. Observation as they say is; Go and watch in Court and watch how the game is actually played, I can tell you they push this hard. Participation is in role plays (I have been to one of theirs) and they teamed me up with another person so that we could practice this; time permitting, and also prodded me to rejoin Toastmasters.In effect they have provided or pointed me to all the necessary skills and knowledge components of what will be required. The rest in terms of application is up to me.

Last edit: by OneRingRules

Aural Visual learners

 
Viking said
I find the post by Amoranthus somewhat confusing; there is some praise for the helpers and then a very strong implied criticism about their methods. From the post it appears the writer has either limited knowledge about the different and effective methods of instructing people and or the true needs or problems of self represented people.

Firstly my background, I have been involved in 'designing' adult education programs and courses for a number of years, in both TAFE and with commercial organisations. I have been self represented for almost nine months in a lengthy and still continuing Family Court battle. For the past six months these people have been providing assistance to me. I think I can therefore comment about the effectiveness of their methods.

They have never used the word 'training' to me or in their literature, what they focus on is the acquisition of various skills and knowledge to make someone competent. In fact they let me know very early on that the MRA does in fact have structured training courses. These people adopt a different approach based on what time I have available.

I have no idea where the very odd 5-7% figure of so called Aural Visual learners comes from. This is not a term commonly used in this Country. In fact this figure would put someone in the 'very severe educationally sub normal categories'. People acquire knowledge, education, training or skills or whatever one may wish to call it by a variety of methods, all in different measures and parts according to the end target. The four main categories are in fact, listening, reading, observation and participation and each has subsets. The last is participation which is the main area of actually being a part of and the practice of the 'task'. The four main areas apply to 100% of the population - the amount of each particular type of 'education' is determined by the task and the individuals own abilities.

These people put me very early on to a path which I now clearly appreciate led a very logical path to the skills and knowledge I would need (and have already partially used) They were quite emphatic about observation and participation. Observation as they say is; Go and watch in Court and watch how the game is actually played, I can tell you they push this hard. Participation is in role plays (I have been to one of theirs) and they teamed me up with another person so that we could practice this; time permitting, and also prodded me to rejoin Toastmasters.In effect they have provided or pointed me to all the necessary skills and knowledge components of what will be required. The rest in terms of application is up to me.


 

Well, I was trained as consultant to use what I had assumed were international terminology over 20 years ago. Later, I was trained to use these concepts in conjunction with Transactional Analysis. Admittedly, these were both a seminar courses, - Professional Development might be the familiar term here. -  but I have had numerous discussions over the years with teachers in the US and Europe who had no problem understanding the term. When I was retrained here in Australia as Trainer and Assessor, my counselor told me I could probably finish the course in two weeks based on his discussions with me by phone.
I chose instead to take a more serious and professional attitude towards my change in career, and spent the next two months covering the background reading. About 10% of those readings referred to the Kiersey designations. There are comparable percentages and descriptions from Kiersey. The 5-7% may be a little generous. Aural Visual learners are those who learn from reading and speaking, the essential tools of academic training. This distinction is made because at one point about 40 years ago, those with this aptitude were considered to have "high IQs" by the original Stanford-Binet system.
My statements come from having read all of the material sent out by SRL R, and a great deal more.And having had numerous long conversations about the material.
I think the assessment is fair. The work that SRL R does is highly laudatory, but the presentation methods limit it to a small percentage of the population. That is not a condemnation of their work in any way. Providing a crash course in dealing with the courts is a near impossible task. I'm not sure I would be willing to undertake the project if the target market were wider. Only a certain small percentage of the population have the aptitude to represent themselves in court, and learning aptitudes are only the beginning. There are many other factors which further limit a person's ability to successfully become an SRL.
I think all of these facts are reflected in their program and its statistics.

PaulD

Last edit: by OneRingRules

Aural Visual

I notice that Amoranthus has not addressed some of the comments I made, rather he has launched into another tangent

Of course different terminology is sometime used in different countries. What he is referring to in Australia is workplace training and assessment or more generally known as Cert IV. With some basic experience most people can get a Cert IV in a couple of weeks. In does not represent a very high level of achievement - it is a measure only of basic competence

The term Aural Visual is NOT a term commonly used in this country in the educational field. It is primarily applied in visual arts and theatre and Web design where the main 'receptor' is by Visual or audio means. By trying to muddy the waters and throwing in some nonsense about the original (and now discredited) IQ scale is Amoranthus trying to convince me or himself that he knows what he is talking about?

To me the poster is an armchair general - heavy on the theory but without any apparent practical experience, someone that clouds an issue they do not fully understand and uses the excuse of 'serious discussion' as their platform for doing so. If he wants to criticise SRL Resources let him do it from a position of actual rather than theoretical knowledge. Has Amoranthus been an SRL?, does he help SRLS?

When I started I only had some ideas about what I might need to do, it was they that put me on the right course. As a 'professional' in the education field and an SRL I can look at what they did and how they did it and find little to improve

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets