Professor Rhoades outlined the difficulties family law professionals face in parenting matters following amendments to Pt VII of the Act in her paper, Rewriting Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975. Professor Rhoades had analysed the data collected from 20 solicitors and 17 judges from her research in Australia, which showed that there is confusion as to certain sections of Part VII and that a simplification of the legislation would be welcomed. At present there is a DCPFS worker situated at the FCWA that provides the ongoing support within the court. The co-location of the DCPFS Child Protection Consultants in the Family Court continues to enable the sharing of information in highly complex cases. The exchange of information between the Court and the DCPFS has grown significantly as client complexities increase. In addition to Form 4 referrals and the production of subpoenas, the collaborative arrangement now sees more targeted requests for information at an early stage, and the inclusion of caseworkers or the co-located worker in complex cases can be seen as a benefit to both jurisdictions. The processing of information appears to have been streamlined to give the co-located worker increased opportunity to maintain a direct approach to complex cases where DCPFS are engaged. In WA, the Court Practice Direction 1 of February 2015 outlines the sharing of Children’s information with the FCWA, specifically for the following to be provided as evidence in the proceedings in the FCWA: affidavits; reports under s 139 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004, and if not written, then a record of it as otherwise directed; documents; and proposals under s 143 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004. This allows the FCWA opportunity for the more timely flow of information that may not have been possible previously. Electronic filing of applications by DCPFS as outlined in the CCWA Practice Direction 2 will utilise technology to save time in the interim until hard copy papers can be filed the following business day. The use of technology and other contemporary means such as MOUs which encourage swift sharing of information and minimal siloing can only benefit clients in the long term, particularly families. Efficiencies gained with the use of technology will need to be evaluated also as we prioritise timely legal processes and decisions in the best interests of children long term stability and wellbeing. In 2010 the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and New South Wales Law Reform Commission reported on the Inquiry into Family Violence. The inquiry was drawn to consider,
Professor Rhoades outlined the difficulties family law professionals face in parenting matters following amendments to Pt VII of the Act in her paper, Rewriting Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975. Professor Rhoades had analysed the data collected from 20 solicitors and 17 judges from her research in Australia, which showed that there is confusion as to certain sections of Part VII and that a simplification of the legislation would be welcomed. At present there is a DCPFS worker situated at the FCWA that provides the ongoing support within the court. The co-location of the DCPFS Child Protection Consultants in the Family Court continues to enable the sharing of information in highly complex cases. The exchange of information between the Court and the DCPFS has grown significantly as client complexities increase. In addition to Form 4 referrals and the production of subpoenas, the collaborative arrangement now sees more targeted requests for information at an early stage, and the inclusion of caseworkers or the co-located worker in complex cases can be seen as a benefit to both jurisdictions. The processing of information appears to have been streamlined to give the co-located worker increased opportunity to maintain a direct approach to complex cases where DCPFS are engaged. In WA, the Children’s Court Practice Direction 1 of February 2015 outlines the sharing of information with the FCWA, specifically for the following to be provided as evidence in the proceedings in the FCWA: affidavits; reports under s 139 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004, and if not written, then a record of it as otherwise directed; documents; and proposals under s 143 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004. This allows the FCWA opportunity for the more timely flow of information that may not have been possible previously. Electronic filing of applications by DCPFS as outlined in the CCWA Practice Direction 2 will utilise technology to save time in the interim until hard copy papers can be filed the following business day. The use of technology and other contemporary means such as MOUs which encourage swift sharing of information and minimal siloing can only benefit clients in the long term, particularly families. Efficiencies gained with the use of technology will need to be evaluated also as we prioritise timely legal processes and decisions in the best interests of children long term stability and wellbeing. In 2010 the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and New South Wales Law Reform Commission reported on the Inquiry into Family Violence. The inquiry was drawn to consider,
Aboriginal-Family-Law-Services-WA.DOCX