Dear Member,

It's a bit difficult to answer your query without further information and background, and the overlap between intervention orders and family law orders regarding parenting is quite complex. a family law order can override an intervention order in relation to contact with a child, but it really depends on the particular circumstances. However please feel free to give me a call to discuss further, these are my contact details:

http://www.fgd.com.au/who/family-lawyers-melbourne/daniel-myers/

(03) 8376 7000

Regards.

Do either of you own any other savings or assets? The best way to recover the $450 might be to have it dealt as part of an overall property settlement between the two of you. Has this already occurred?

Dear Madam,

It's not possible to give an answer to your question in isolation to all other other circumstances surrounding your marriage. However, the mere fact of your husband moving into rental accommodation of course won't make him any less liable to pay the mortgage from the bank's perspective. However, as between you and him, the responsibility for this expense (and the house insurance) is likely to be determined by your respective financial capacities and your respective financial needs in light of the new regime e.g. taking into account what you each earn as an income, any child care responsibilities, the payment of any child support, the size of his rent, the size of the mortgage and so on. In short, there is no automatic rule or law that would apply to your question in each case - it would depend on the overall circumstances of the couple and the history of the relationship.

Dear Member,

The answer to your question will depend by much on the overall circumstances about the marriage including matters such as the nature and value of the property brought into the marriage, how it was used during the marriage (e.g. by that person exclusively or for the joint benefit of the couple), the current size of the property pool, and a whole further checklist of criteria to do with your current and future circumstances.

However, as a broad rule of thumb or guideline, the longer the duration of a marriage, the less weight and relevance the initial financial contribution will be. So, after a period of 17 years, the impact of the contribution may be quite negligible and have relatively little effect on the division, particularly if the value of the property was quite small in the first place. This is because there has been "too much water under the bridge" for the initial contribution to remain very significant. However, this really will depend on the particular circumstances, because no two cases in family law are ever identical, and there is always an inherent degree of discretion involved in any decision-making.

Dear Member,

The answer to your query is obviously not straightforward and can't be answered easily on this forum. However, to give you a general idea about some of the concepts to consider:

1. According to the law, decisions about children are based on their s "best interests", and not the rights, entitlements or wishes etc of a parent or any carer for the child.

2. Some of the relevant factors that determine a child's "best interests" include the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with a parent, and the need to protect a child from any harm such as neglect, abuse etc. There is a long list of further factors such as a child's wishes (especially as they reach maturity), the nature of the relationship between the child and their parents/significant carer, the capacity of those people to care for the child, and the impact of any change in circumstances on the child.

Without further information about these and similar factors it's not possible to give any meaningful advice about what you should/shouldn't do in relation to your niece's requests to spend time.

The other issue to consider is a process for dealing with your niece's requests, in the event you can't reach an agreement quickly. There are various ways to help resolve any dispute, such as mediation, collaboration, negotiation (with or without lawyers) or court proceedings.

Dear Member,

The question you ask unfortunately can't be answered in any meaningful way without fully understanding the full background and circumstances of the couple (e.g. how long they were living together, who is driving the separation and why, what other assets the parties own (including other residential property), the respective incomes and employment of the parties etc.

However, in very broad terms, mere occupation of the home at this stage won't make any material difference to the entitlements of the parties upon a final property settlement. The house is a "joint" asset and the entitlement to keep it (or be paid out of their share, or receive a share of any sale proceeds) will depend on various other factors such as the contributions the parties made to the house and their respective current and future financial circumstances, care of the children etc.

On the other hand, as a matter of practicality it can be very useful to remain in the home and live is often harder for a party who decides to vacate, especially if they will remain primary carer of a young child. For example they may need to pay rent, or move in with parents/friends, and generally re-establish themselves in another place for a period which can be difficult in already stressful circumstances. The party who remains in the home may be more comfortable and have less incentive to deal with issues quickly and therefore will gain some leverage in negotiations.

Again however I stress that these are general considerations and may or may not be applicable to the particular facts you describe.

Dear Member,

In order to give a meaningful answer I would need to see the terms of the divorce settlement (known as a property settlement), including the amount the Wife received, together with all the other relevant background. I'm also unsure if you're referring only to "child support" or the property settlement. If the issue is only child support, then (very broadly) an assessment is based on the respective incomes of the parents and the number of nights the children spend with each parent (and a number of other factors).

If circumstances have changed since earlier orders (or an earlier assessment by the Child Support Agency) then your friend may be entitled to apply for a variation.

Dear member,

The single biggest factor that will impact costs is whether or not you already have an agreement with your partner about the terms of any settlement. If not, and there is a dispute, the particular process you use to help reach a settlement will also be very important.

For example, at one end of the scale you could use a mediation service with minimal input from lawyers except to draft any settlement documents. The total cost might be something like $5,000 - $10,000. At the other extreme is a fully litigated court case where a Judge eventually makes a decision about how the assets should be divided. That would cost at least $50,000.

In-between is a process called collaborative law which involves both parties and their lawyer signing a contract in which they agree not to go to Court. Collaboration is about finding solutions, not finding more things to fight about. Compared to traditional litigation methods, it’s dignified, discrete and allows you to stay in control.

I'd be happy to discuss your situation in more detail if you would like to make an appointment in my office at a convenient time.

Regards.

Dear member,

I would like to know if there are any current orders in place. If so, the terms of those orders might be relevant to the exercise of parental responsibility including decisions about your daughter.

If there are no such court orders, given that your daughter is already living with and the mother is genuinely out of contact, then in the short-term you may not need to do anything formal except continue to make all efforts to consult her about "major long-term" issues (and ensure you keep a close written record of your attempts). This is because, subject to a court order, each of the parents of a child who is not 18 has parental responsibility for the child.

If the mother continues to be MIA, it may be appropriate to apply for a court order confirming that you have formal "sole parental responsibility" for your daughter. There are pros and cons of this. For example, if you obtain the formality of an order it will make it easier in practice when attending to things such as passport applications or enrollment at school. However the court process itself may not be in your overall interests and could prompt the mother (if and when she is served with the documents) into seeking orders that are less favourable to you.

To answer your specific question: "At what points do our rights no longer become equal as it is impossible to make shared decisions when she can not even be contacted?" again, I would need to know what the current status of parental responsibility actually is, but in general terms there is no fixed period and the court considers this question it will consider all circumstances relevant to the child's best interests including the history of parenting arrangements and both yours and the mother's current circumstances.

If you need any further assistance I'd be happy to make an appointment with you in my office.

Hi there. It sounds like you and your partner are living in a de facto relationship. This is a type of relationship that exists between two people who are not married but live together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The law recognises that de facto relationships can exist between two people of the same or opposite sex.

Separating from your de facto partner would mean that the property and assets you and your partner own would need to be divided up – this is known as a “property settlement”. If you have pre-existing financial agreement prepared by a lawyer, you can divide up the property according to the agreement.

If such an agreement does not exist, you can try to reach an agreement yourselves. Any agreement reached can be made binding by speaking to a lawyer who will help you both enter into a binding financial agreement or file consent orders with the Family Court or Federal Circuit Court. If you are having difficulties reaching an agreement with your de facto partner, you may want to consider accessing a family dispute resolution service (seewww.fdrr.ag.gov.aufor more information).

If you cannot reach an agreement with your de facto partner, you can apply to the Family Court or Federal Circuit Court for a property settlement. You would be eligible to make an applicable because your de facto relationship has lasted for more than two years. When deciding how the property will be divided, the Court will consider a number of factors, such as:

• what each of you owned before the relationship;

• the net value of your current assets (including superannuation);

• financial and non-financial contributions made by each person over the course of the relationship; and

• each person’s earning capacity and future needs.

The Court will consider these factors to determine what proportion of the assets should be given to each person. You said that you do not co-own any property with your de facto. While this suggests you would retain ownership to that property, your partner may have some rights to a portion of that property depending on whether he or she has made indirect financial contributions (e.g. payment of household expenses) or non-financial contributions (e.g. domestic tasks, renovations) and what his or her relative earning capacity is in relation to your income.