Annual report [1997-98] - Family Court of Australia

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Family Court of Australia – annual report 1997-98 Evaluation of the integrated client services project Previous annual reports have described the characteristics of the Integrated Client Services (ICS) program and foreshadowed the evaluation of the pilot being carried out at the Parramatta registry. Consultants Kearney McKenzie and Associates were asked to evaluate the Parramatta ICS pilot and their report was delivered in March 1998. Briefly, the evaluation recommended that there be a cautious extension of ICS across registries and this would need to be accompanied by the necessary computer support. As I have previously explained, any decisions about the widespread adoption of ICS within the Court must also await the Attorney-General’s decision about the future of the Court’s primary dispute resolution services. However, as a normal part of improving its services, the Court is extending its computer network and building infrastructure which will have a capacity to support ICS when needed. Legal Aid matters Restrictions in the provision of legal aid to Family Court customers have unfortunately continued to be a feature of proceedings throughout the year. The impacts vary from State to State and are to some extent dependent upon the approach of the State Legal Aid Commissions to the implementation of very tight Commonwealth guidelines. However, overall the trend is for aid to be severely restricted and for this to have impacts on the families concerned and on the Court’s operations. Judges remain concerned that women involved in disputes in which violence is a factor are unable to obtain legal representation and as a consequence are required to cross-examine or be cross-examined by an allegedly violent partner. Registrars report possible settlement opportunities being lost because unrepresented litigants are unwilling or unable to negotiate with each other. In some States mediation is a pre-requisite for an aid application, but this mediation appears to be directive rather than facilitative and scant attention is paid to the suitability of the dispute for mediation. There continue to be cases involving children where representation is denied, not on the basis of its need, but because the parents are not legal aid recipients. Where aid is provided caps apply, usually with rigour. Largely as a consequence of the legal aid restrictions, the percentage of cases involving unrepresented litigants continues to increase. It is currently estimated that (excluding applications for divorce) 40% of both first instance and appeal matters involve one or both parties who are unrepresented. Andrews Committee Report ‘To Have and to Hold’– a report of the Inquiry into Aspects of Family Services – was presented by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in June 1998. This was preceded some months earlier by the Committee’s review of Audit Report No. 33, ‘The Administration of the Family Court’in which it commented on several issues relating to that report. Specifically, the Committee criticised the Audit Report for omitting any reference to the administration of primary dispute resolution procedures or to the ICS model. It recommended that there was a prima facie case for retaining control of PDR services in the Court and argued that any proposal to do otherwise 21
The Family Court of Australia – annual report 1997-98 should be based on solid evidence that those services could be improved by different administrative arrangements. ‘To Have and to Hold’concentrated mainly on the methods available for supporting relationships and preventing their breakdown. It recognised that the Court’s services are, by necessity, directed at the acute needs of couples who have decided to separate, and that the focus of these is therefore different from the marriage and relationship counselling/therapy offered by the community-based organisations. For this reason it recommended that the Court’s conciliation counselling services be re-named as separation counselling services. The report considered the Court’s PDR services to be an integral part of its operations and recommended that they remain a part of it. Judicial training Queenscliff seminar Anumber of judges and judicial registrars attended a training seminar in early April at Queenscliff in Victoria. The seminar enabled several newly appointed judges to participate in a forum at which papers were delivered on topics such as adversarial procedures, unrepresented litigants, gender awareness, simplified procedures and judgment writing. Cooktown workshop Those judges and judicial registrars who work in registries where there are likely to be indigenous customers were provided with training in Cooktown in late April 1998. One aim of the workshop was to promote the Court’s ongoing development of initiatives and strategies to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to access its services in a way that best meets their needs. Representatives of indigenous communities were able to meet with Court staff and discuss a range of issues related to families and to consider how the Court’s services and procedures may best be adapted to better service the needs of indigenous families and communities. With the appointment of two family consultants for Far North Queensland, the workshop also helped promote awareness of the consultants and their role. Delay reduction programs The Court is most concerned that delays in the settlement of final hearings have, if anything, increased over the year in review, particularly in Melbourne, Newcastle, Adelaide and Brisbane. This has occurred despite the efforts in a number of registries in both the northern and southern areas to reduce waiting times by running particular delay reduction programs. Such efforts are usually successful in the short term, but require a huge effort from already overworked judges and staff and a major injection of resources. Moreover, they can provide no more than ‘band aid’solutions to what is an inherent structural problem. The difficulties have been exacerbated by delays in the replacement of retiring judges and a failure by the Government to implement the Court’s proposal that part-time judges be appointed to cope with backlogs and periods of judicial illness and long leave. In the major registries an increasing volume of interim matters requiring determination can only be met by judges sitting in discrete duty lists, thereby compounding delays in the listing of final hearings. The Court has recently proposed that senior registrars be granted additional delegated powers in order to allow them to hear interim parenting applications. 22
Page 2: FAMILY COURT of AUSTRALIA Family Co
Page 5 and 6: The Family Court of Australia - ann
Page 25: The Family Court of Australia - ann
Page 75 and 76: TheFamilyCourt of Australia - annua
Page 77 and 78:
The Family Court of Australia - ann
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
The Family Court of Australia- annu
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
The Famil yCour to fAustra lia -ann
Page 125 and 126:
TheFamilyCourtofAustralia-annualrep
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143:
show all

Annual report [1997-98] - Family Court of Australia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?