| AVOs | ||
| 1001 shifty courtroom tactics, written in several english language levels, and each tactic with the details of the case, judge, lawyer etc.. | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Posted 02 July, 2009, 09:28 PM
|
||
Percolo Alio
 |
I just wanted to add a short note here that an undertaking is not an admission of guilt or otherwise and it is quite silly to suggest otherwise. An undertaking is simply "well maybe there is some issue here and I want both parties to undertake they will not do certain things and if you come back here then we will be looking at an order". Let me tell you that we have had many cases where these AVO and Interventions come to the local courts and Magistrates because there is a family matter looming at one or other of the Family Courts. It is surely much wiser to accept an undertaking WHICH IS NOT taken up into account in any Family Courts (Either), matter than to have to front with an AVO or intervention order which implies much wrong doing. Absolutely agree that you must strongly defend (I don't like fight as a word here) an AVO especially if there is a matter pending in the Family Courts. That is my take and I would be interested to hear from others. Interesting concept. I have not seen such happen, as usually the Police Prosecutor is hell bent on making a successful case and ensuring an AVO is ordered. Often we see judicial officers in these courts taking a much more "Worldly View" of things than the local police command prosecutor who usually never get to the bottom of matters, don't want to get the other side of the story and push the cases through like a sausage sizzle. I often wonder if they have targets to meet. The reason the AVO is under way is that there has been an incident, the other party hates you or there is genuinely a case to answer. In all three reasons I would doubt the parties would be so inclined as to want to front to mediation or counselling. There is a big difference between both mediation and counselling anyway and the aftermath of a DVO/AVO Intervention proceeding does not auger well for a reasonable outcome in either. To get the Magistrates / Local court to order a third party at handover with costs borne by the applicant (Often Police) you are really asking a lot as the handover matters and related family matters are probably for another hearing. Are you a solicitor in the Family courts? Was my post helpful? If not, please let us know how we can do better If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity |
|
|
||
|
Posted 03 July, 2009, 05:18 AM
|
||
|
Silver Member
 |
I am well aware that an AVO is said to be not considered an admission of guilt, particularly by lawyers and Magistrates, however I feel differently about the issue.. Perhaps you can read a previous post of mine about when in the nineties the chief Mag of the Mag Court and I were head to head on the issue. Years ago the Family Court did take into account AVOs from the Mag State ct. I do not know if that is still the same today. What is given as policy publicly in the past, did not necessarily bear out in reality. I have not been to Family Court for some time and so are not up to date on their operations. I have been heavily engaged in Family Law in other jurisdictions, and my Family Court work has for some time been not within the precincts of that Court but with parliaments and others. It is true that although I am grateful for many of the changes I do not trust them. I believe there is more to be done to perfect the Family Court, or whichever Court Family Law utilmately resides in as I prefer to see the closure of the Family Court and the retention of the Federal Magistrates Court, at least at this time. In the past, mediation was ruined easily by one clever parent taking out a false AVO, as well as when AVO was real. In the past,Family Court details of the AVO were discussed, and I know of conflicting opinions that occurred at the time as to whether or not a state court AVO stops a federal court access. I think the motive in that case was to delay and cause the other party to have to keep returning to Court. To this day, I know of no document that guarantees that an AVO will not interfere with custody and especially access. Perhaps you could assist. I always tell people do not give in to the undertaking. If the order does not need to be made, then you should stand up and say so. |
|
|
|
||
|
Posted 03 July, 2009, 06:38 PM
|
||
Percolo Alio
 |
Isy, I am confused. What is the chief Mag of the Mag Court. Do you mean the Chief Magistrate of one particular States Court? What State was that?
Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. For total privacy, join SRL-R at www.srl-resources.org for In-depth, reliable and confidential family law support. 66 Family Law forums. All members are verified. No search engines, no public forums, no visitors, no guests, no ex's.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Posted 03 July, 2009, 11:28 PM
|
||
|
Percolo Alio
|
I didn't say that Isy. I said an undertaking is not an admission of guilt or otherwise NOT that an AVO is said to be not considered an admission of guilt, which is what you have written. There are two massive differences. An AVO is an Apprehended Violence Order and an Undertaking is not an AVO nor is it an effectible, actionable instrument in either a later family courts hearing or by any police action. i.e you can contact the applicant if you have an undertaking and whereas you may not be able to contact the applicant if there was an AVO in place with such terms. I just wanted to correct that particular point. The legislation around all of this changed in the Shared Parental Responsibility (Bill) 2006 and you are correct that this was not the case previously in the "Old Days". Yes there is more work to be done but we are a long way ahead of the game than when we all started in around 2000 and a number of us well before. That does not necessarily stop PDR (Primary Dispute Resolution) now The new Act sets all of this out quite carefully. On the site we have the explanatory memorandum and also the SPCA views of the changes and sections. An AVO, active and in place makes it much harder to get over the threshold of a rebuttable presumption of Shared Parental Responsibility. If you do not get over that bar, which is automatic unless it is rebutted, then you won't get to s65DAA significant and substantial time. Well it depends at what stage the undertaking is given. I would suggest you definitely start with your approach and stand up and say so in your opening argument. It may well be completely fabricated and you have evidence and that gets put up straight away. But once all avenues are closed and at the end the Judicial Registrar suggests he might consider an undertaking, then for goodness sake don't advocate to throw the baby out with the bath water only to end up with an AVO because you were not flexible. Was my post helpful? If not, please let us know how we can do better If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity |
|
|
|
||
|
Posted 08 July, 2009, 07:00 PM
|
||
|
Silver Member
|
I should read the current law act. It sounds as if it is larger than before. I have enjoyed hearing about it before reading it. Still, I bet I can find plenty of problems with it and almost all of them would be about judges failing to obey act poor evidence standards bias towards one party failure to enforce orders failure to seek out evidence sneaky tactics of some parties |
|
|
|
||
|
Posted 09 July, 2009, 12:50 AM
|
||
|
Percolo Alio
|
I find it hard to believe that you post as authoritative commentary and yet have not read the very Act, current court rules and related explanatory memorandum that you are posting about. If you have evidence in current cases after the new amendments to the Act were introduced let us have specifics so we can look at these and evaluate what needs improvement in the legislation. In respect to the last item most judicial officers are wise to the tactics and the defaulters court is fast becoming obsolete as some cases are run on regardless of one party trying to delay by non filing. Common sense is prevailing in many cases that we see. Regardless of how good you make legislation, where you have two litigants who are not amiable to agreement and settlement then you will have a decision that someone won't be happy with. Was my post helpful? If not, please let us know how we can do better If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity |
|
|
|
||
|
Posted 12 July, 2009, 04:50 PM
|
||
|
Silver Member
|
I started a draft copy of a book years ago then left it by the wayside. 1001 shifty courtroom tactics, written in several english language levels, and each tactic with the details of the case, judge, lawyer etc.. It would be nice of none of those worked anymore. I saw in your forum however that some say delaying a case continually to build up status quo is still in play. And I have heard in recent years about some surpringly good and caring judgments being made. It is not all bad. I still think that shared parenting needs years to filter thru society and become the first thought and not the last, prior to going to a court. I do lean towards fault divorce. When I first started looking at law I met a bloke who explained to myself how his case had sufffered because of no fault divorce. I agree with him. His case was a reasonably common type. In every era, there are persons who suffer who will never enjoy restoration. I don't like that. Taking advantage of another person has become too easy. Let us hope those family Court judges want to keep their jobs so much they will join in creating something better. If they do not however, there is only the power of the people to pull them up and hold them responsible, or replace them. |
|
|
|
||
Forums
Rules
Groups
Unread
Recommend
Donate
