Talk:Family Court of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger[edit]

I think the article should remain separate. Australian family law, much like Australian labour law and Australian criminal law, should discuss with specificity that branch of the law of Australia.--cj | talk 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that separate articles are appropriate. Paul foord 06:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Keep as is. -- Longhair 07:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Separate articles are appropriate. Sambo 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas[edit]

Any ideas for what content can be included on this article? It could easily over-stretch size requirements, but I'm happy to do content: any ideas people? MojoTas 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

what about the family court bombings and shooting in the early eighties? i cant find anything about this over here. in general, the history of terrorism in australia is not very elaborate. i do not know if it is better to start at that point or to iclude some basic information here. it was an attack against the institution as such, so i think it could be of relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.104.228 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of major changes to article January 2009[edit]

  • article's content had no in-line citations and was almost entirely unreferenced, apart from only 2 items in External Reference list which didn't support any of the claims
  • The previous list of all Judges didn't add to article in any way (in my opinion). It was composed almost entirely of redlinks. I updated it a few months ago by deleting 8 judges who had retired. In any event - maintenance of the list would probably have required additional effort in 2009-10 with the pending changes arising from the Attorney-General's proposed merger of the FCA with the FMC.
  • Article still requires some work eg. I've not written anything about the significant changes arising from the 2006 legislative changes (Shared Parental Responsibility Amenbdments) - which probably belong more properly in the general article about Australian family law which itself requires substantial work GlenDillon 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of section "No jurisdiction over De Facto Relationships outside of Australia"[edit]

I removed this section:

No jurisdiction over De Facto Relationships outside of Australia

So, unlike a marriage which has a recognised legal status in the Australian Constitution and is also internationally recognised, the legal status of a de facto relationship and a ‘de facto financial cause’ can only be applied within a participating Australian State due to the limitations of Section 51(xxxvii) of the Australian Constitution where it states the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterward adopt the law.[1][2]

To explain further, the unmarried couple do not take the State with them when they move out of the State and the de facto legal status cannot exist outside of a participating State. Thus, the legal status, rights and obligations of the unmarried couple's relationship is then covered by the countries laws on unmarried relationships of where they are ordinarily resident. To otherwise interpret the legislation would be to override Section 51(xxxvii) of the Australian Constitution due to limitations on how the power was derived from State power and international human rights on the right for self determination and right to choose status. See Articles 1 and 2 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[3]

Reasons:

  1. It seems to me to be original research. It doesn't cite sources for any of its major contentions - the sources it does cite don't actually make the points it is relying on them for
  2. As originally written (until I changed it), it confused the notion of States with Territories
  3. It ignores there are two other relevant powers here other than the referral power. For the territories, the Commonwealth has full power to make laws with respect with them. For overseas couples, the Commonwealth arguably has powers under the external affairs power, etc.
  4. It isn't clear even exactly what it is trying to say

ZackMartin (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ French, Justice (Feb 2003). "The Referral of State Powers Cooperative Federalism lives?". Western Australia Law Review..
  2. ^ Thomas (2007) 233 CLR 307, [208] (Kirby J).
  3. ^ "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Family Court of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Family Court of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update required ?[edit]

I note that the article last had a major update in 2009 and 8 years later some fo the material is looking dated. Find bruce (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Court_of_Australia&oldid=1207177419"