Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Austraian Legal System in Adressing Family Issues

The case of Jonah v White (2012) 48 FAM LR 562 wishes to appeal the original decision of Murphy J, in which his Honour asserted that the appellant, (“Ms Jonah”) and the respondent (“Mr White”) had not been in a de-facto relationship in correspondence with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The appeal is bought before May, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The case seeks to question and determine what constitutes a law-binding de-facto relationship.

In October 2008, resulting from the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) report; Same-sex: Same Entitlements, a suite of major law reforms passed federal parliament. This included the Family Law Amendment (De facto Financial Matters and Other Matters) Act (Cth), which recognised relationships that exist outside the traditional heteronormative concept of marriage. Prior to these reforms, there were several different definitions of ‘partner’, ‘couple’,

The effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses concerning contemporary issues within families is to a moderate extent. For example, whilst legal responses such as the Family Law Act 1975 (FLAct) and the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 creates enforceability and fairness, there is a great lack of equality and, in some cases, a lack of timeliness which is shown in the article Caught in the Middle of Parenting Nightmare1 in which two parents have fought for more than 7 years about their child’s upbringing. Furthermore, whilst non-legal mechanisms such as the media creates fairness and accessibility, there is a lack of enforceability as the media does not hold legislative power. The contemporary issues that exist within families include divorce,

Law reform has been rather effective in catering to contemporary issues concerning family members in a equal and accessible way. Although, the effectiveness of law reform relating to family members has been slow to develop, the current quality of family law, which is guided by the means of the 1975 Family Law Act (FLA) has been affecting justice for family members. The effectiveness of family law has changed a lot over time. The legislation that has been changed to ensure the effectiveness of the family law system includes the reform of the family laws Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (NSW), Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) (now replaced by the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility)

Legislation and legislative change in Australia has sought over the years to both define the roles of women under the law and amend laws to ensure that gender inclusive redress occurs in the area of marriage and long-term relationships. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, passed in the United Kingdom, attempted to reform the law on divorce and marriage, however in that Act it explicitly granted men an easier route to divorce than women. The colonies at that time were invited to also pass this legislation. In response to the demand for radical reform to family law legislation and the unequal gender balance that has been present for many years in Australia, the Whitlam Government made major changes to marriage law in passing the Family Law

On the 11th of June, 1996, the Family Law Reform Act 1995 came into effect amending certain sections of the Family Law Act 1975, in particular, those relating to the care of children involved in divorce situations. The object of these amendments, according to the new act, was to ensure two things. Firstly, "that the children may receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential," and secondly, "to ensure that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children." These recent amendments are clearly a positive step forward for family law because the law has

The classical pluralist model is distinguished by its example of power being relatively dispersed and that decision-making is open to a variety of interest groups. In Australia, scholarship has settled upon what Monsma and Soper describe as ‘pragmatic pluralism’ (1997) based upon political expediency, explained by the practical character of Australian culture and in the context of same-sex marriage, an interest in giving a ‘fair-go’ (Sky News Australia 2015). The most important predictions about same-sex marriage and politics amount to the flow-on political participation and organization of interests. This is a topic Australian people are interested in. This tenet of Dahl’s organizational pluralism urges individuals to query the conditions of rights, ritual and state recognition in Australia (Dahl 1978). In this way, classical pluralism’s strength in relation to the marriage equality topic is that it speaks to a future where diverse relationships are supported, instead of denied and shamed.

“Assess the effectiveness of current legal and non-legal responses in achieving justice for TWO contemporary issues concerning family law.”

To achieve a society with good ethical and moral qualities, laws are present to keep the country from bias and “offer some degree of protection” (Ives, R, Lamont, J & Kronenberg, D; 1998) for citizens. As stated by the Parliamentary Education Office, “laws can only be passed or changed with the approval of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Royal Assent of the Governor-General”. A law that insures equality is “Discrimination law [which] exists to enable everyone to take part equally in public life, regardless of irrelevant personal characteristics” (Summary of Discrimination Law; 2012). Same-sex marriage in Australia is a proposition that many Australians support, as it would establish equal rights between gender and sexuality. This issue is currently a debatable topic in Parliament and it is uncertain whether Australia will follow the example recently set by the United States of America and

“In Australia there is an understanding, recognised by the law, that parents hold the prime responsibility for the care, welfare and upbringing of their children.” Unfortunately, some children do not have this privilege. Section 286, Duty of person who has care of child, states that this ‘responsibility’ is the provisions of necessaries which include food, clothing, lodging, care and medical treatment (Dosen, 2013). But is this enough for a child that has suffered through a parental divorce? You, the members of the Australian Department of Human Services should understand that this is not enough for children from broken families. All children should have the opportunity to have security, of all kinds, through the devastation of parental

Past studies suggest that polygamist unions destabilizes a society as it leaves many males or females, depending on which gender takes multiple partners, without the opportunity to procreate or marry. On the contrary, same-sex marriage does not alter the fundamental idea of two people entering into a legal union. Take for example the legalisation of marijuana. In many countries such as America and Finland marijuana has been legal to use for many years and so far there has not been any progress in legalising other illicit substances such as cocaine and methamphetamines. This example only further emphasises that allowing gay marriage does not necessarily mean that Australia will be put on the slippery slope towards legalising

Domestic violence remains a serious and widespread crime problem in Australia, causing substantial social, emotional and economic costs to victims, families and communities (Morgan & Chadwick, 2009). Social values and attitudes towards domestic violence have changed over time, and while it was once regarded as a private matter, today domestic violence is considered socially unacceptable and a legal rather than a civil matter. Although there have been significant reforms in policy and policing of domestic violence, it continues to be a serious social problem in Australia with no evidence to suggest any reductions in its incidence (Stewart, 2001). A large body of evidence consistently shows that the victims of domestic

Conflict is ubiquitous, and as such, the courts cannot be expected to have the resources to deal with a “legal explosion” of sorts, where an unprecedented number of cases overwhelms the courts. Litigation is known to arise as a means to and end, signaling a breakdown in social relationships. In doing so, it “encourages parties to dwell on each other’s shortcomings and past misdeeds”, which would not be preferred in settling family disputes, particularly where children have the potential to become collateral damage. Two relevant pieces of Australian legislation have been introduced in recent years which aim to combat this issue by both encouraging and compelling parties to, where possible, mediate their disputes, as well as reforming court procedures. These Acts are the Family Law Reform Act 1995 (Cth) and the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth). These Acts “focus almost exclusively on disputes over the care of children, because of the perceived danger posed to children through their parents’ use of the adversarial court

Allowing same-sex marriage to legally occur is currently a major debate within Australia that has a huge presence in our contemporary society. Same-sex marriage is defined as the union of two individuals of the same gender identity and these couples have experienced discrimination on the personal and legal level (Rich & Wagner: 2016). Not only does this debate effect the lives of same-sex couples wishing to get married, but all individuals and groups within the LGBTQIA+ community. A significant issue with this debate are ideas of heteronormativity which seems to be one of the major underlying arguments against marriage equality. This paper will be defining heteronormativity, the basis of this argument, discussing how anthropological understandings can be applied and ethnographic examples such as campaigns against marriage equality. Ethnocentrism plays a substantial role within allowing same-sex marriage under Australian law, as traditionalist views of marriage have overtaken ideas of a change, however, in modern society the idea of marriage equality is more widespread and accepted. Even with the current plebiscite being conducted there have been many campaigns against marriage equality that prove how problematic arguments against marriage equality are.

The following two cases were taken against Ireland and therefore directly affect Irish family law. In the case of Johnston v Ireland, the court held that family life existed where a non-married heterosexual couple had lived together for 15 years. In Keegan v Ireland, the applicant challenged the Irish adoption law that allowed an unmarried mother to place her child for adoption, without the consent of the father. The applicant argued this treatment of non-marital fathers violated article 6, the right to fair trial, and article 8 of the ECHR. The Court held in favour of the applicant and found that when an unmarried couple are living together, a child born in that relationship is part of the family unit, which will continue if the parents no longer live together.