separation Archives

Avoiding The Snowball Effect

26 March 2025 11:35 am Leave a Comment

The golden rule in coparenting is that effective communication is crucial.

It can be tempting to ignore or delay replying when you see a message from the other parent and, let’s face it, most people would prefer not talking to an ex if they had the choice. However, this is where the problems often start and not communicating (or not doing so appropriately) can easily make everything worse.

Where it is safe to do so, having a quality communication channel with the other parent prevents small problems from turning into big ones and the key to stopping this snowballing effect is for both parents to follow some fundamental rules of communication.

Be polite and start with a greeting.

Don’t ever insult the other parent or imply that they’re not doing as good a job.

Keep the messages to the point and factual so the other parent can respond in the same manner.

Always get the other parent’s side of the story on any incident first rather than jumping to conclusions.

Assume that everything you write will be brought up at some point in the future to someone important.

Acknowledging receipt of messages from the other parent is important and, if you can’t reply straight away, provide a reasonable timeframe for when you’ll respond.

If your child misses a call from the other parent, organise a time for them to call back.

If you need some help, try using a parenting communication app but always call if there is an emergency.

There are plenty more rules, but these will stop a lot of molehills from turning into mountains which makes for a far smoother coparenting experience. If nothing else, it’s always beneficial for kids when they can see both parents on the same page and getting along.

Joshua Noble is an Accredited Family Law Specialist at Zande Law located at Suite 3, Jade Chambers, 15 Middle Street, Cleveland. To contact Josh for advice, please phone (07) 3385 0999 to schedule an appointment.

The information in this article is merely a guide and not a full explanation of the law. This firm cannot take responsibility for any action readers take based on this information. When making decisions that could affect your legal rights, please contact us for professional advice.

Next Article: Parenting Coordination and Family Law Parenting Orders

The Benefits in Settling

2 October 2024 10:54 am Comments Off

In the Court’s most recently available end of financial year report, the Brisbane Registry
topped the country in Divorce Applications despite Sydney and Melbourne having
approximately twice the population. Interestingly, the gap widened when it came to matters
settling by way of Consent Orders and again Brisbane led the nation with approximately 40%
more cases being resolved than Melbourne in second place.

The benefits in settling cannot be underestimated and parties should always consider these
when negotiating:

The savings in legal fees to both parties; Most family lawyers often (and should)
describe this as money that is better spent on the kids rather than continuing to fight.
The cost in compromising to both parties is often far less than the cost of litigating
through to a Trial;
The delay in settlement can hold up one or both parties from receiving cash
payments; While no one has a crystal ball to determine what will happen with house
prices, the reality over recent years has been an exponential rise throughout the
Brisbane region – so the cost to re-enter the property market can become more
expensive than settling at an earlier stage of the negotiations;
If money is tied up in Trust; inflation erodes the buying power of those funds the
longer the case remains unresolved;
The effect that fighting will have on your coparenting relationship; Parents have many
years to raise children together and it is in the kids’ best interests to be protected from
any toxicity between the adults. Beyond their childhood, there are often milestone
events such as graduations, weddings and grandchildren that people wish to be a
part of which can be jeopardised if there is family drama following a bitter Divorce;
and
It brings an end to the emotional and psychological toll that can occur when
negotiating the division of assets or parenting arrangements. On current estimates,
litigation can comfortably take more than a year and this only drags out the healing
process following separation.

There is a real benefit in having control over your outcome rather than leaving it into the
hands of the Court. Sometimes a Trial can become necessary (in some limited
circumstances) but at least it seems that Brisbane residents are seeing the benefits in
reaching agreements.

Joshua Noble is an Accredited Specialist in Family Law working at Zande Law Solicitors,
Suite 9, Norwinn Centre, 15 Discovery Drive, North Lakes practising from our Cleveland
offices at Suite 3, Jade Chambers, 15 Middle Street, Cleveland. To contact Josh for advice,
please phone (07) 3385 0999 to schedule an appointment.

The information in this article is merely a guide and not a full explanation of the law. This firm
cannot take responsibility for any action readers take based on this information. When
making decisions that could affect your legal rights, please contact us for professional
advice.

The February 2020 Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence – Part 2

13 August 2020 4:20 pm Comments Off

The February 2020 Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence

Did it fail?

PART 2

Well, let’s look at some of the recent statistics:

The overall number of deaths has fluctuated but shown no sustained decrease;
There’s been less physical violence since the 90’s but an increase in sexual assaults; and
In Queensland, we’ve had a double-digit increase in various domestic violence applications.

If the numbers show an increase in applications, is this a failure? Or have we merely been successful in pulling back the rug from an issue much greater than anyone originally thought? One report stressed that a number of factors contributed to this such as increased confidence in victims, improved court accessibility and changing police practices.

The government’s focus has been on changing cultural attitudes and early prevention which is much more difficult to measure. In 2017, a national inquiry revealed a mixed result in the scorecard of society’s views – we’re more aware that family violence goes beyond just physical encounters and we’re also more willing to intervene when seeing someone verbally abusing their partner. However, the report also said Australia was going ‘backwards’ in some areas such as understanding that men are more likely to perpetrate family violence.

What standard then do we use in measuring success in our efforts? We simply don’t know and there are too many variables to definitively answer the question at this point in history. As an example: since our population and volume of applications for protection has climbed but our number of deaths hasn’t, this is at least shows some measurable improvement in the total percentage of families who suffer from the ultimate tragedy – even if the problem hasn’t been eradicated entirely.

Our latest inquiry suggested a ‘wait and see’ approach in examining whether our existing efforts will have lasting success before Australia looks at a new National Plan. This cautious answer was deemed insufficient and a new inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence has already been proposed to be answered by a different committee.

However, if the issue is rooted in evolving societal attitudes, is this new inquiry fated to come to the same conclusion as the last one?

It takes time to change a culture but if the latest statistics are anything to go by, we’re making some progress. Let’s hope the inquiry finds where we can improve so we can Stop it at the Start.

Joshua Noble is a Solicitor at Zande Law Solicitors, Suite 7, Norwinn Centre, 15 Discovery Drive, North Lakes. To contact Joshua for advice, phone 3385 0999.

The information in this article is merely a guide and is not a full explanation of the law. This firm cannot take responsibility for any action readers take based on this information. When making decisions that could affect your legal rights, please contact us for professional advice.

The February 2020 Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence – Part 1

23 July 2020 4:35 pm Comments Off

The February 2020 Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence.

Did it fail?

PART 1

Following the horrific murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children in February this year, our Federal Senate referred an inquiry to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee to report on and grade the efficiency of our current strategies in combating domestic and family violence, where improvements could be made and how effective we have been as a country in meeting our targets.

The result? After three months, the report was handed in early and, in a “somewhat unprecedented” move, the committee failed to hold a single hearing or seek any submissions from public bodies. Ultimately, the committee noted the comprehensive work done in the previous inquiries and felt that another lengthy and wide-ranging one at the present time would be of limited benefit and divert attention and resources away from front-line services.

In a scathing rebuke, South Australia’s Senator Rex Patrick tore shreds through the inaction of the committee to advise on whether our current measures are being implemented effectively. At face value, it might be easy to agree with Mr Patrick that the February 2020 inquiry was a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money. But before we all condemn this committee and label all the Government initiatives as ineffective, it is important to look at both the statistics and see what work was already underway before the February 2020 Senate inquiry was commissioned.

While these stories rarely make the front page, in 2010 Australia adopted a National Plan with the goal of a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children. Since 2015, we’ve already looked into how effective our measures have been on multiple occasions and one as recently as June last year.

Although each State has separate legislation for domestic violence (and the criminal act of breaching protective orders), there have been significant improvements championed nationwide. In recent years we’ve seen court orders now being recognised across state lines, the establishment of a Minister for Women Cabinet position, greater cooperation between police agencies, the creation of a specialised Family Violence Court and record levels of federal funding towards tackling family violence. The public and private availability of emergency assistance for victims looking to escape violent situations are also undoubtedly excellent initiatives.

Overall, the focus on early prevention programs such as Queensland’s ‘Stop it at the Start’ ad campaign and positive relationships being taught in our schools as part of the curriculum have been assessed to be having a positive effect though it is still early days.

However, the obvious questions remain – how do we measure progress in this area? Can we be confident the current government-led initiatives have any chance of success? In part two of this series we will tackle these questions and more.

Joshua Noble is a Solicitor at Zande Law Solicitors, Suite 7, Norwinn Centre, 15 Discovery Drive, North Lakes. To contact Joshua for advice, phone 3385 0999.

You Want to Separate Under One Roof

11 September 2017 11:55 am Comments Off

You Want To Separate Under One Roof

For many, a relationship breakdown brings logistical and/or financial difficulties that make it impossible for separate accommodation until an agreement on a full property division can be reached. As a consequence, many of these couples find themselves having to serve out a time of being separated whilst still living under the one roof. These arrangements can throw up a multitude of issues. Some of the more common issues and the law’s answer to them are below:

Liability for mortgage repayments, rates and insurance attaches to the spouses per registration on title, joint registration means 50/50 liability etc. Under Family Law however, a Judge has the power to alter the percentage contributions according to individual capacity to pay and usually, regardless of actual use.
Liability for utility services such as electricity, telephone and data attaches to the spouse whose name is on the contract, but again, a Family Law Judge has the power to alter the percentage contributions. Here the division of liability for the item, more commonly reflects each spouse’s proportion of use.
Under the Qld Domestic Violence Act, each spouse is obligated to keep the peace with the other and respect the other’s privacy, any breaches of this conduct entitles the innocent spouse to make an Application for a Protection Order and where the breach(s) is serious the guilty spouse can be ordered to vacate the property.
It is possible to count the separation period under the one roof as part of the 12 months for a divorce, but independent evidence to prove the couple were in fact separated during this time is required. Consequently, it is often cheaper and easier to delay the count for the 12 months separation for a divorce until each spouse has taken up separate accommodation.
Whilst maintaining a separation under the one roof can certainly alleviate the financial and logistical difficulties of finding and financing separate accommodation, keeping estranged/warring spouses in close proximity to each other amplifies the risk of escalatory behaviour and when this takes hold, the fight typically becomes more bitter and more expensive to quell.

The decision to maintain a separation under the one roof therefore very much is a case of weighing up the benefits against the burdens.

Michael Zande is a Queensland Law Society accredited family law specialist with over 25 years experience in the field. He is the principal at Zande Law Solicitors, Suite 7, Norwinn Centre, 15 Discovery Drive, North Lakes. To contact Michael for advice, phone 3385 0999.

Legal loop holes to cause major problems for De Facto couples

6 March 2014 1:33 pm Comments Off

In 2009 new laws were introduced into Australia which were, for the first time, supposed to give de facto couples the same rights as married couples when it came to a breakdown in the relationship and separation.

Some recent decisions from cases in the Family court however have now made it very clear that all is not equal between married and de facto spouses and that in actuality a shortfall with the 2009 laws has potentially left de facto spouses with the ability to manipulate the family law system so as to significantly disadvantage their former partners. In a nutshell the problem is this:

In many de facto (and for that matter marital) relationships there is often an imbalance in power between the couple. All of the bank accounts or assets might be in the name of only one spouse and/or that same spouse might have the higher paying (or only) job which generates the income upon which the couple (and their children if they have any) expect to live.
Under the family law system there are special procedures and laws which are designed to even up these imbalances. The system gives to the weaker spouse the means to combat attempts by the empowered spouse to hide assets or starve the other spouse out of the money and resources necessary to both run their case and continue to feed and house themselves whilst the final property division exercise is being worked out.
Two recent family court decisions however have now ruled that until it is actually proved that the parties were in a de facto marital relationship, none of the protections mentioned above are available.
In many situations the fact of the previous existence of a de facto relationship is as plain as day and consequently little if any trouble arises for those couples.
In other relationships however, degrees of separation during the relationship such as the operation of separate bank accounts and even part-time occupancy of separate houses leaves it open for an unscrupulous spouse to argue that there was never any full de facto relationship in the first place and;
It is almost always these unscrupulous types of ex-spouse who typically have held on to the power and control of all of the assets and income during the relationship and are in the highest risk category of trying to hide or starve the other spouse out from those assets post separation. With no controls in place, these unscrupulous types are also potentially free to spend down or destroy the assets which can often happen out of pure spite and;
With it sometimes taking up to 1-2 years to get a case to trial so that the existence (or not) of a de facto marital relationship can be proved, these unscrupulous types have plenty of time to reek havoc on their former partners such that by the time the matter is actually tried there is potentially no assets left to divide.

All however is not lost. A little known old (and relatively low level) law which has previously been used to prevent people from abusing the processes of the court, is currently being quickly dusted off and given an injection of steroids as a potential temporary fix. So far the courts have acknowledged in one case that the law can be used to make injunctions (which is a special type of court order) to stop an unscrupulous spouse from destroying or dissipating assets. In another recent case it has been suggested that the law can be used to force the “have” spouse to make money available for the “have not” spouse to fund her legal representation to even up the fight but that case settled (in favour of the “have not” spouse) and so the court’s attitude to this further step is still unknown.

It is certain that the problem with the 2009 law can be fixed with a change to its drafting but that could take many months if not years to resolve and so in the meantime our “little engine that could” law is there to help but, if you are in a de facto marital relationship and the other spouse is insistent on controlling all of the assets, the best protection by far will be to:

make sure that you have excellent documentation (and if necessary witnesses as well) to be able to prove unequivocally that you are in a de facto relationship with the other person.
better still, there is now the means under the Queensland system for de facto couples to register their union with the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. Under the legislation, once the relationship is registered, the existence of the de facto marital relationship is immediately proved; and/or
just get married!

Long Distance Parenting

21 September 2012 9:40 am Comments Off

Considering the vast distances dividing Australia’s major population centres, the advent of high speed internet connectivity and the highly mobile nature of the Australian community as a whole, it is little wonder that the breakdown of family relationships bring many parents into conflict over where the now separated family is to live. Work commitments or career advancement opportunities after separation regularly put parents in need of moving to different towns or cities and many parents who previously agreed to move away from their home towns as part of intact nuclear family units understandably wish to move back for the support of extended family when the immediate family unit is no more.

When the parents cannot agree on these relocation issues, the Australian Family Court has the power to decide who can stay and who can go, but beyond these primary issues there are many other things to consider:

Who pays for the cost of seeing the children – there is definitely no principle in Family Law to say that the parent who moves away (with or without the children) must be the parent who is obliged to pick up the cost of the children continuing to spend time and communicate with the other parent who did not relocate. What Family Law principles do say is that each parent is duty bound to do everything reasonably necessary to ensure that children continue to spend time and communicate with both of their parents and consequently it continues to be a responsibility of both parents to pick up the added cost of long distance parenting, but only to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. What is reasonable of course depends on the facts of each and every case.
Impact of higher costs of long distance parenting on Child Support Assessments – if the relocated parent wishes, they can have the Child Support Agency consider reducing the amount of their standard Child Support Assessment to take into account the cost that parent is now paying to see the children for:
- transport
- accommodation
- telephone expenses; and
- internet and the like.

Like most things however, there are conditions:

the costs to be considered are only those costs which exceed 5% of the parent’s adjusted child support income;
food, clothing and entertainment costs are unable to be claimed; and
if the parent is only seeing the children between 52 and 127 nights per year, only transport costs can be considered. Accommodation, telephone and internet etc costs are all excluded.

Justification for the 5% threshold works on the assumption that the cost would be of an insufficient magnitude to peak above the usual ebb and flow of the day to day household living costs. The justification for excluding food, clothing and entertainment etc costs stems from the fact that these costs are part and parcel with the usual costs the parent would have been paying for the children whether at home or away. The restriction to transport costs only for the 52 – 127 night care arrangement is not readily explicable, but possibly stems from a concern to ensure that child support payments needed for children’s day to day sustenance costs such as food and clothing in the primary parent’s household are not gauged and diverted to pay for expensive hotel rooms.

Deductions for these costs from child support are not automatic, the claiming parent must make application to the Child Support Agency for a review of his/her assessment via the standard child support review process. In adjudicating on this decision, the Agency will give the other parent a right of reply and will require full documentary evidence to support all of the claim and again, will only allow those expenses which are considered to be reasonable in all of these circumstances.

Michael Zande is a Queensland Law Society accredited family law specialist with over 20 years experience in the field. He is the principal at Zande Law Solicitors, Suite 7, Norwinn Centre, 15 Discovery Drive, North Lakes to contact Michael for advice phone 3385 0999.

Contact Us

Tag Archive: separation