Open PDF - Family Court Bulletin - December 2009 - Size 482 KB

Family Court Bulletin
Issue 5 December 2009
From the Chief Justice
It has been two years since the introduction
of the Family Court Bulletin and I sincerely
hope that as a reader, you have found it to be
informative and that the publication has kept
you abreast of the Court’s initiatives, projects
and the challenges it faces.
One such challenge has been the Government’s
plan to merge the Family Court and the Federal
Magistrates Court. Despite the lack of clarity
Chief Justice about when we can expect resolution on this
The Honourable Diana Bryant matter, the Courts have over the past twelve
months, moved ahead by creating a single
administration to service both Courts. Although
legislative changes required to merge the Courts is a
matter for Government, we are in a very good position
to manage any outcome that eventuates.
As I reported in the past edition of the Family Court
Bulletin, Professor Richard Chisholm has been
commissioned by the Government to undertake a
review of legislation, and practice and procedures
relating to family violence in the family law courts.
The Court has worked cooperatively with Professor
Chisholm during his research period and now the
report, along with a study by the Australian Institute
of Family Studies on the effect of the 2006 shared
parenting reforms, is expected to be provided to the
Attorney-General by the end of the year.
The annual Judges’ Conference was held in November
which involved very interesting speakers discussing a
range of topics relevant to the Court’s work, including;
family violence; managing the needs of Indigenous
clients; Islam in Indonesia; human rights; and the
Hon. Murray Gleeson presented a paper on statutory
interpretation.
As you will see on page 9, the Court recently held a
very special event which commemorated 25 years
since the series of bombing attacks on the Family
Court at Parramatta and the homes of Family Court
judges. To give recognition to those who were
impacted by these attacks, and to pay tribute to
the commitment of the judges, staff and the legal
profession at the time, the Court has erected a plaque
at the Parramatta registry.
In October I travelled with the Court’s Chief Executive
Officer, Richard Foster, to attend a meeting of the
International Association of Court Administrators
(IACA). I am pleased to advise that at the meeting,
Richard was elected as the Executive Vice President
of the Association—a tremendous achievement
indeed. The IACA was created in 2004 to promote
excellence in the administration and management of
justice-related organisations throughout the world,
and it has been a very rewarding experience for this
Court to be involved with this association.
In the latter half of this year I have presented
a number of papers at various national and
international conferences. Recently I attended the
Family Relationships Services Australia Second
National Conference in Sydney where I presented
a keynote address and participated in a workshop
on perspectives on risk assessment and safety with
families affected by violence. In late November I
presented a paper on the changing nature of expert
evidence in Family Court proceedings and in addition,
I participated in a workshop at the Australia and New
Zealand Association of Psychologists, Psychiatrists
and the Law conference in Perth.
The Court farewells Justices Jordan (Brisbane)
and Waddy (Parramatta) who are both retiring in
December. I thank them both for their service to the
Court and wish them a healthy and happy retirement.
More details will be included in the next issue of
Family Court Bulletin.
May you all enjoy a safe and happy Christmas and
New Year.
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009

Judgments of interest
Marsden & Winch
[2009] FamCAFC 152 (Bryant CJ, Finn and Cronin JJ), 26 August 2009
This was an appeal by the father against the orders
of the trial judge dismissing his application to obtain
orders for face-to-face time with his ten year old
daughter. Orders had been made in August 2006 that
the father spend no time with the child and that the
father’s contact be limited to written communication
with the mother, who could then decide whether or
not to pass letters on to the child.
The father’s subsequent application for face-to-face
time with the child was dismissed by the trial judge at
a preliminary stage on the basis that the father had not
established a sufficient change in circumstances as to
warrant a re-hearing. On appeal, the father asserted that
the trial judge had misapplied the ‘threshold test’ arising
from Rice & Asplund, and in doing so denied the father
procedural fairness. The father also asserted that the
decision was contrary to the best interests of the child.
The Full Court upheld the substantive grounds of appeal.
The Full Court reaffirmed the observations of Warnick J in
SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93-363 that the rule in Rice & Asplund
is an essential rule and that for a rehearing of a parenting
issue the applicant must establish a significant change
in circumstances. The Full Court said that whether the
court should embark upon another hearing of parenting
issues is a decision to be made in each particular case,
having regard to:
zx The past circumstances, including the reason for the
decision and the evidence upon which it was based.
zx Whether there is a likelihood of orders being varied
in a significant way, as a result of a new hearing.
zx If there is such a likelihood, the nature of the likely
changes must be weighed against the potential
detriment to the child or children caused by the
litigation itself. Thus, for example, small changes may
not have sufficient benefit to compensate for the
disruption caused by significant re-litigation.
The Full Court held that the application of the rule in Rice
& Asplund should not be restricted to only two choices
(either application of the rule by taking the applicant’s
case at its highest, or a full hearing) and that a ‘range of
processes’ should be considered.
Oakley & Cooper
[2009] FamCAFC 133 (Warnick, Boland and Murphy JJ), 30 July 2009
This was an appeal by the father against parenting
orders made by a federal magistrate where the parties’
two children were ordered to live with the mother
nine days a fortnight and spend time with the father
five days a fortnight. The federal magistrate found
that the children, aged 9 and 7 years at the date of
hearing, had witnessed and endured chronic conflict
between their parents for the whole of their lives.
The relationship between the parties was described
as ‘extremely volatile’ and separation occurred in the
context of a domestic violence event which saw the
father removed from the home.
On appeal, the father asserted that the federal
magistrate had erred in not giving sufficient weight to
family violence allegedly committed by the mother,
including physical chastisement of the children. No
Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence had been filed in
the proceedings. At trial, the federal magistrate accepted
that both parties had used violence against each other,
in the presence of the children, and that both parties had
also hit the children.
In considering this ground of appeal, the Full Court
considered the relevant sections of the Family Law Act
concerning the protection of children. The Full Court also
2
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009

Oakley & Cooper continued…
had regard to the Family Court’s Family Violence Best
Practice Principles, which were launched by the Attorney-
General in March 2009. The Full Court stated that family
violence is an extremely important consideration and
highlighting some of the recommended considerations
in the Family Violence Best Practice Principles serves to
illustrate how they might be of assistance to courts in
framing orders which could assist the future wellbeing
of children in cases where family violence is in issue.
The Full Court found that the federal magistrate gave
appropriate weight to each party’s inappropriate
conduct and that at times the mother’s behaviour was
worse than that of the father. The Full Court described
family violence as an important issue in the case
and found that the federal magistrate, in his ‘clipped’
reasons, gave appropriate weight to violence when
weighing all the relevant factors to determine the
children’s best interests.
Strahan & Strahan
[2009] FamCAFC 166 (Boland, Thackray and O’Ryan JJ), 14 September 2009
This was an appeal by the wife against interim
property orders whereby the husband was ordered
to pay the wife $1 million by way of interim property
settlement to fund her litigation expenses. The wife
contended that the trial judge erred in applying
a requirement of ‘compelling circumstances’
and, having misused the concept of compelling
circumstances the trial judge then wrongly allowed
it to influence how much to award the wife.
The Full Court reaffirmed that an order for litigation
costs can be made as a property settlement order,
a maintenance order or a costs order. The Full Court
emphasised the importance of identifying the relevant
source of power when contemplating an order for
interim provision for litigation expenses since it is
the source of power that determines the necessary
preconditions, relevant considerations, factors or
matters for making the order.
The Full Court found that the trial judge had erred in
principle in the procedural step by applying a test of
‘compelling circumstances’ in deciding whether or not
to make an interim order for the provision of litigation
funds, and by then undertaking a detailed analysis of
the further legal work to be undertaken on behalf of the
wife. All that was required, in the Full Court’s view, was to
decide whether it was an appropriate case in which to
make an interim order for property settlement because
the wife required funds to defray legal costs and expenses
of the pending proceedings. The Full Court found that it
would be necessary to undertake an assessment of the
amount required if an order was being sought pursuant
to section 117 of the Family Law Act. However, as the
wife’s application was for an interim property settlement
pursuant to section 79 of the Act, such an analysis was not
required. The Full Court held that the trial judge should
have made the orders sought by the wife i.e. for an interim
property settlement of $5 million.
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009 3

Initiatives and Programs
Family Court of Australia Annual Report 2008–2009
The Family Court’s 2008–09 annual report was tabled
out of session in the Senate on 30 October 2009.
The summary below highlights some key outcomes in
the report.
Judicial services
At the end of June 2009 there were 35 judges of the
Court including the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief
Justice.
In 2008–09 the Court achieved a clearance rate over
100 per cent for each of its major applications, with a
total clearance rate of 106 per cent. This has effectively
reduced the number of pending applications by almost
13 per cent (or approximately 800 cases) since 2007–08.
This indicates that the Court maintained a relatively
stable output and workload commensurate with its
resources and the demand on its services.
In the three other 2008–09 metrics where the Court
did not achieve its targets (two backlog indicators and
percentage of cases finalised), it needs to make only
Issues sought on Final Orders cases
small improvements to reach the targets in 2009–10. In
particular, the Court is striving, where it is able to and
as appropriate, to reduce the number of pending ‘older’
cases by actively managing those cases to disposal. If the
Court is able to achieve this, it should lead to improved
timeliness for future case disposal.
Work of the Court
The Court continues to deal with the most complex
and difficult family law cases. While child-related
and parenting cases are very difficult, the Court also
deals with very complex cases involving financial and
property issues. Such cases often deal with the splitting
of superannuation, corporate businesses and expensive
and complex finance and property portfolios. There has
been a significant shift in the past few years, and the
Court now deals with a greater proportion of its cases
involving complex financial issues (see Figure at left).
The full report and a summary of the report
can be accessed from the Court’s website at
www.familycourt.gov.au or for a hard copy
email communications.office@familycourt.gov.au
4
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009

Publication update
New booklets
Two new kid’s booklets are now available to order
or download from the Family Law Courts website:
www.familylawcourts.gov.au
The booklets are titled:
zx Why am I going to see a family consultant?
Information for kids aged 5–8.
zx Why am I going to see a family consultant?
Information for kids aged 9–12.
The booklets aim to assist children involved in a family
law case by giving them an understanding of what is
happening, why they are talking to a family consultant
and what else may happen. They aim to relate to children
in these two age groups to reassure them and make the
process less stressful.
CEO’s Report
The CEO’s Report for the 2008–09 financial year
was presented in November at the annual Judges’
Conference in Melbourne.
The report outlines achievements and projects in the
Court’s administration during 2008–09. In addition to
those outlined in the Annual Report, the CEO’s Report
details other achievements complementary to the
provision of access to justice such as:
zx the strengthening of relationships with international
colleagues
zx the Integrated Client Service Delivery Program final
report
zx the commencement of the development of a new
information architecture for the Court’s website, and
zx assistance for the victims of the Victorian bushfires.
For more information, or to get a copy of the report
go to www.familycourt.gov.au or email
communications.office@familycourt.gov.au.
Revised brochures
The Family Court brochures Case Assessment Conference
and Conciliation Conference underwent significant
revision following the Rule change that commenced
earlier this year. The new versions of these two brochures
are now available to download from the Family Law
Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au
Divorce Forms
The Application for Divorce form and kit and the Divorce
Service Kit have been revised to include the option of
electronic filing through the Commonwealth Courts
Portal (see article on eFiling on page 10 for more
information).
In addition to these changes, the divorce publications will
undergo further revision in February 2010 to incorporate
a terminology change from ‘Divorce Certificate’ to
‘Divorce Order’ (see page 6 for more information).
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009 5

Chief Justice Bryant speaks at the
2009 Judges’ Conference in Melbourne
2009 National Judges’ Conference
The 2009 National Judges’ Conference was held on 9–10 November in Melbourne. Various speakers presented on the
first day of the professional program on a range of topics including:
Family Violence—latest research on risk factors
Report on conclusions of Family Violence Review
Statutory Interpretation
National Human Rights Consultation Report
Family Law Courts—Managing the Needs of Indigenous Clients in 2009 and Beyond
Indonesia—Past, Present and Future
Dr Carolyn Johnson
Professor Patrick Parkinson
Dr Thea Brown
Professor Richard Chisholm
The Hon Murray Gleeson
Professor George Williams
Stephen Ralph
Professor Tim Lindsey
The second day of the program consisted of judges’ only meetings.
Divorce order
The Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Court and
the Family Court of Western Australia are proposing
to implement changes to the making and issuing of
documentation relating to divorce.
The current form of Certificate of Divorce replaced the
form of decree nisi of dissolution of marriage that had
previously been issued, which was in two parts. The first
part recited the order nisi for divorce, the second was
the operative part of the form which was the certificate
that the decree nisi had become absolute. The certificate
of divorce that is now issued is not a prescribed form. It is
a document issued pursuant to section 56(3) evidencing
that the divorce order has taken effect.
The current certificate of divorce is not being recognised
in several international jurisdictions and is causing
difficulty to Australians wishing to remarry overseas.
This is because some overseas jurisdictions require a
certificate to contain all the requirements considered in
granting the divorce order.
In particular, difficulties have been encountered in
relation to the recognition of Australian divorces in some
foreign countries as the current Divorce Certificate does
not explicitly stipulate that the criteria for divorce have
been satisfied. The current certificate only specifies the
names of the parties to the marriage.
To address this, it is proposed that the current
Certificate of Divorce will be replaced by a divorce
order which stipulate that the criteria for divorce have
been satisfied. When the divorce order takes effect, the
Courts are proposing to distribute the divorce order
which will include a certification of the divorce having
taken effect without the need for a separate divorce
certificate to be issued.
Implementation is expected early in 2010. Forms,
publications and websites will be updated to reflect
the change.
6
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009

International Framework
for Court Excellence
An International Framework for Court Excellence
was launched at the Australasian Institute of Judicial
Administration’s Court Quality Forum in September
2008. The framework will enable the Family Court to
review its existing strategic plan for delivering family law
services to the community.
Interesting web facts
www.familylawcourts.gov.au
In 2008–09 the Family Law Courts website was
visited 588 660 times. Of these, 398 084 were
visiting the website for the first time.
The framework provides guidance for courts to improve
performance in seven key areas:
1. Court management and leadership
2. Court policies
3. Human, material and financial resources
4. Court proceedings
5. Client needs and satisfaction
6. Affordable and accessible court services
7. Public trust and confidence
The Family Court is currently well positioned to adapt its
practices to the international framework. In determining
how it would like to be recognised within the legal
environment, the Court is reviewing:
zx any measures in place to allow it to achieve its goals
zx any opportunities which exist to become a best
practice organisation
zx any gaps in the current framework, and
zx the best way to engage stakeholders.
The seven key areas will be a starting point for the
review. As part of this review, the Court will also consider
implementing a pilot of the framework in one of the
registries.
www.familycourt.gov.au
In 2008–09 the Family Court of Australia website
was visited 738 686 times. Of these, 378 165 were
visiting the website for the first time.
Top three most frequently viewed Family Court
web pages in October 2009:
zx Forms and Fees
zx Court lists
zx Judgments and legislation
Three common search keywords on the Family
Court website:
zx divorce
zx forms
zx courts
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009 7

2009–10 YEAG (L-R): Rory Barclay, Rachel Payne, Chris Vogelsinger,
April Grenquist, James Gasteen, Kristy Freeme, Robyn Birch,
Tijana Petkovic, Amanda Morris
Young employees continue to have their say
Membership of the 2009–10 Young Employees’ Advisory
Group (YEAG) was announced by CEO Richard Foster in
June this year.
The group, which consists of nine staff from the Family
Court and Federal Magistrates Court, have started work
on three new projects, including:
zx the use of SMS notifications
zx promoting and improving existing staff development
and induction programs, and
zx developing an environmental policy for the Court.
These projects have been endorsed by management
and each project is supported by a senior management
representative who acts as a sponsor and works closely
with the YEAG members.
YEAG mentor and Vic/Tas Regional Registry Manager, Jane
Reynolds, said ‘the 2010 Group brings wonderful insight
and advice on our operations and how we can work
differently. They have identified relevant projects which
will add real value. I particularly appreciate their energy
and recommendations for change.’
‘I’m looking forward to using the experience and
knowledge I have gained from working in different areas
of the Court and working with other young employees
and management on projects in the Court. I think it will be
a great opportunity to network and encourage new ideas
and practices.’ Rachel, 2009–10 YEAG
‘I’m looking forward to meeting other young employees
from across Australia and working together to facilitate
positive changes within the Court.’ April, 2009–10 YEAG
The YEAG initiative first commenced in 2008. Its purpose was to encourage young staff of the Court to step-up and share
their unique thinking and ideas. In 2009, the membership was opened up to staff from the Federal Magistrates Court.
The inaugural 2008 YEAG thoroughly enjoyed the experience, especially learning about business management practices
and learning from and interacting with senior management.
‘Meeting other staff members and travelling to different registries has been a great eye opener. It’s also been great to
do things I wouldn’t normally be able to do in my normal role, such as meeting with the Chief Justice and presenting at
executive management meetings.’
Ebony, 2008 YEAG
Indigenous Working Group
In May 2009, the Family Court and Federal Magistrates
Court established an Indigenous Working Group. The
group collect research data and information to help
identify how the Courts can enhance relationships and
respect for Indigenous Australians.
The Indigenous Working Group will consider issues such as:
zx the impact of the shift of the provision of Indigenous
services to Family Relationship Centres (previously
provided by the Indigenous Family Liaison Officers)
zx how to manage applications for parenting orders
relating to traditional adoption practices by Torres
Strait Islanders (Kupai Omasker)
zx how to better meet the needs of Indigenous
clients by ensuring information is provided to all
staff and Indigenous clients, and
zx the development of a Reconciliation Action Plan.
The Reconciliation Action Plan will identify how the
Courts will enhance relationships with Indigenous
Australians. It will include areas such as building
relationships with the Indigenous community, staff
education, attracting and retaining Indigenous staff
and ensuring that judges and family consultants
have access to appropriate expertise to deal with
Indigenous families.
8
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009

(L-R) The Hon Josephine Maxwell, the Hon Eric Baker, the Hon Margaret Renaud,
the Hon Richard Gee, the Hon Elizabeth Evatt AC (former Chief Judge), and the
Hon John Purdy, who were all Family Court judges in Parramatta in 1984.
Chief Justice Bryant unveils the memorial plaque
Recognising courage amongst adversity
On 20 November 2009, the Chief Justice of the Family
Court, the Honourable Diana Bryant, unveiled a memorial
plaque to commemorate 25 years since the series of
bombing attacks on the Family Court at Parramatta and
the homes of some of the judges of the registry, and to
honour those affected by them.
Over 40 delegates including current and former judges
and federal magistrates, family members of some of
the victims, staff and members of the legal profession,
attended the unveiling and lunch.
The 1980s was a tumultuous decade for the Family Court.
Judges, their families and staff were targeted in a series
of separate attacks which effectively changed the lives of
all those involved.
zx On 23 June 1980 Justice David Opas was shot dead
at his home in Woollahra.
zx On 6 March 1984 the home of Justice Richard Gee
was bombed. Justice Gee was injured in the attack.
zx On 15 April 1984 a bomb exploded on the premises
of the Parramatta Family Court.
zx On 4 July 1984 Mrs Pearl Watson, wife of Justice
Raymond Watson, was killed by bomb explosion at
their home. Justice Watson was injured in the attack.
The plaque also acknowledges the courage and
dedication of the judges and staff of the Family Court,
and the legal profession particularly at Parramatta,
who continued to serve the people of Australia,
notwithstanding the real risk to their safety and that of
their families.
In Memory
On 23 June 1980 Justice David Opas was shot dead at his home in Woollahra
On 6 March 1984 the home of Justice Richard Gee was bombed. Justice Gee was injured in the attack
On 15 April 1984 a bomb exploded on the premises of the Parramatta Family Court
On 4 July 1984 Mrs Pearl Watson, wife of Justice Raymond Watson, was killed by a bomb explosion at their home
The three judges referred to above were judges of the Family Court of Australia
and these acts were directed at them in consequence of their office
This plaque is to commemorate the 25 th Anniversary of these events and to honour those who were affected by them
It is also to acknowledge the courage and dedication of the judges and staff of the Family Court, and the legal profession
particularly at Parramatta, who continued to serve the people of Australia
1984
Chief Judge Elizabeth Evatt
FAMILY COURT JUDGES—PARRAMATTA
Justice Eric Baker—Justice Richard Gee—Justice John Gibson—Justice Josephine Maxwell—
Justice John Purdy—Justice Margaret Renaud—Justice Raymond Watson
Unveiled by the Honourable Diana Bryant, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia
20 November 2009
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009 9

Commonwealth Courts
Portal
eFiling divorce applications now possible
Registered litigants and representatives from legal firms
who wish to file an Application for Divorce in the Federal
Magistrates Court can now do so electronically via the
Commonwealth Courts Portal.
The Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au)
is an initiative of the Family Court of Australia, Federal Court
of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. The
Portal enables clients and legal practitioners of these Courts
to lodge certain applications and documents and to access
information about cases that are before the courts.
The process
Register for the Portal at www.comcourts.gov.au
Users will be prompted to enter their relevant details and
upload a scanned copy of their marriage certificate or other
documents (as required).
They will then be prompted for payment or, if seeking
an exemption from paying the fee, prompted to upload
supporting evidence.
A list of hearing dates will appear which users can select
from.
At this stage, litigants are not able to file electronically
if they wish to have their Application for Divorce heard at
a circuit location. For information on circuits see
www.fmc.gov.au/html/circuits.html. Litigants wishing to
have their divorce heard at one of these locations must file
their application either in person or by post.
Once the application is complete, a sealed copy of the
application form will be available from the Portal. The
application form will include the file number and hearing
date.
Unlike an Application for Divorce filed by post or at a
registry, the eFiled divorce application will not be required
to be sworn, but must be accompanied by the Affidavit for
eFiling Application (Divorce), sworn by the applicant(s). This
document will be automatically generated by the Portal as
part of the printed application.
Prior to service of the divorce application, the Affidavit for
eFiling Application (Divorce) MUST be sworn or affirmed
before a lawyer, Justice of the Peace or other authorised
person and then uploaded as a scanned image to the
Portal. Once uploaded, a copy of this affidavit with a
sealed ‘confirmation notice’ will be available from the
Portal to download and print.
The Application for Divorce, Affidavit for eFiling
Application (Divorce), sealed confirmation notice, along
with the prescribed brochure called Marriage, Families
and Separation, will then need to be served upon the
respondent in accordance with the Federal Magistrates
Court Rules (see the Divorce Service Kit).
What documents can be eFiled via the
Commonwealth Courts Portal?
The Application for Divorce and certain supplementary
documents can be eFiled via the portal.
Documents that can be eFiled in divorce proceedings
include:
zx Affidavit for eFiling Application (Divorce)
zx Affidavit of Service by Post (Divorce)
zx Affidavit of Service by Hand (Divorce)
zx Affidavit Proving Signature (Divorce)
zx Acknowledgment of Service (Divorce)
zx Affidavit Translation of Marriage Certificate
zx Exemption Form
zx Marriage Certificate
zx Marriage Under Two Years Certificate
zx Citizenship Certificate
zx Affidavit
Documents that cannot be eFiled in divorce proceedings
include:
zx Application for Waiver of Court Fees on the basis of
financial hardship
zx Response to Divorce
zx Notice of Discontinuance*
* If you wish to discontinue an application for divorce that has been filed,
you need to file a Notice of Discontinuance form, and this can only be done
either in person at a family law courts registry or by post.
10
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009

What you need before you commence to
eFile an Application for Divorce?
Read a copy of the Divorce Kit and the Divorce Service Kit
which are available at www.familylawcourts.gov.au >
Forms > Divorce forms and kits
You will also need:
zx Access to the Internet and an email address
zx Access to a printer and scanner
zx A scanned copy of the marriage certificate which is
saved to your hard drive or memory stick and can
be accessed to upload onto the Portal
zx If the marriage certificate is not in English, you will
need to provide a scanned copy of a translated
version, together with an affidavit from the
translator
zx Proof of Australian citizenship if required
zx Further Affidavits if required
zx A valid credit card (Visa OR MasterCard can only be
accepted)
zx If seeking exemption from paying the fee, you
need to download an Exemption form/s (see
www.fmc.gov.au/html/fees_family.html),
complete and scan the form(s) and attach evidence
supporting your request for an exemption. If you
are filing a joint.
Help and more information
zx Call the Family Law Courts National Enquiry Centre
on 1300 352 000.
zx Read the User Guide to eFiling Divorce Applications in
Family Law available at www.familylawcourts.gov.au
> What’s New > eFiling of divorce applications
As at 11 November 2009, 378 applications
for divorce had been eFiled through the
Commonwealth Courts Portal. Of the first 100
efiled divorce applications, only three were
from practitioners.
CEO’s Management
Advisory Group
(L-R) Steve Agnew, Stephen Andrew, Leisha Lister, Jane Reynolds,
Grahame Harriott, Denise Healy, Richard Foster, Jamie Crew
The CEO’s Management Advisory Group (CMAG) was
established in April 2009 following the decision by the
then Family Law Courts Board to further integrate the
administrations of the Family Court and the Federal
Magistrates Court.
A primary objective of the group is to undertake
research into and provide advice to the CEO regarding
key areas of court work that will be most impacted by
the integration.
Members of the CEO’s Management Advisory
Group include:
zx Steve Agnew, Acting Deputy CEO (FMC)
zx Stephen Andrew, Executive Director IT & Acting
Executive Director Client Services (FCoA)
zx Jamie Crew, Regional Manager NSW/ACT (FMC)
zx Grahame Harriott, Chief Finance Officer
(FCoA/FMC)
zx Denise Healy, Communication Manager (FMC)
zx Jane Reynolds, Regional Manager Vic/Tas/SA
(FCoA)
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009 11

Court services over Christmas-New Year
The Family Law Courts rural and regional registries
of Albury, Alice Springs, Cairns, Dubbo, Launceston,
Lismore, Rockhampton, Wollongong and the National
Support Office will be closed from Friday 25 December
2009 and will re-open on Monday 4 January 2010.
Phone calls to these registries during this time will be
re-directed to the National Enquiry Centre.
The larger metropolitan registries and the National
Enquiry Centre will maintain limited services
throughout the holiday period with the exception of
the following public holidays when they will close:
zx Friday 25 December 2009
zx Monday 28 December 2009
zx Tuesday 29 December 2009
zx Friday 1 January 2010
The Court provides an after
hours service for emergency
calls on the National Enquiry Centre
phone number: 1300 352 000. The service
is limited to the family law jurisdiction where there
is risk of a child being removed from Australia before
the next working day or where a lawyer contacts the
service and there is risk of removal of dissipation of
assets before the next working day. This service will
operate over the Court’s Christmas closedown period.
NATIONAL ENQUIRY CENTRE
Phone: 1300 352 000
TTY Phone: 1300 720 980
Fax: 02 8892 8585
Email: enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au
Vale
His Honour John Marshall
His Honour John Marshall, one of the Family Court’s first four judges to be appointed on 5 January 1976, died
recently at the age of 88 years. He was largely responsible for the establishment of the Adelaide Family Court
and became a Senior Judge in 1973.
During his time at the Adelaide registry he closely studied the working of the Family Courts and Juvenile Courts
in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.
During World War II, His Honour served for five years as a pilot (Flight Lieutenant) with the RAAF. Following this
he was educated at Rostrevor College, Adelaide and the University of Adelaide and graduated with a Bachelor
of Laws.
He was admitted to practice in 1950 and served as a solicitor in the South Australian Crown Law Department as
Assistant Parliamentary Counsel and as a Stipendiary Magistrate. In 1971, he was appointed as a Judge of the
Local and District Criminal Courts of South Australia.
His Honour John Marshall retired from the Family Court in 1982 but his influence is still apparent. The Court
sends its condolences to his family and friends.
Further Information
For more information about this publication—including ordering additional copies or to make changes to your
mailing details (including removal from the mailing list)—contact the Family Court Communications Office.
T (02) 6243 8690 F (02) 6243 8711
E communications.office@familycourt.gov.au
12
Family Court Bulletin | Issue 5 December 2009