Logo

Co-Parenting after Separation? Welcome to the Apps of the 21st Century!

by

Relationships break down for many reasons and unfortunately, it is not always on good terms. However, being able to amicably co-parent with your ex-partner is very important for children and family dynamic. Having potentially lost the stability of having a close family unit, it is important that children see their parents communicating and working towards advancing the children’s best interests.

Traditionally, co-parenting has been difficult and communication breakdowns are common. However, with the development of smartphones and new apps there are now several options to assist those endeavouring to co-parent in the 21st century.

 

What are co-parenting apps?

A co-parenting app is an application that you are able to download onto your phone or tablet which aims to provide easy communication regarding the well-being and needs of your children. They have in-built features such as calendars and schedules, as well as access to important medical information about the child/children. They may also have features that track shared expenses and payments, or reminders and alarms to help both parents keep up with the designated schedule.

 

What are the benefits of co-parenting apps?

Co-parenting apps seek to bring a sense of organisation and peace to what can be a very overwhelming and difficult process. Co-parenting involves a large number of considerations including schedules, appointments, expenses, exchange places/times, health concerns of the children, special occasions such as birthdays and holidays, and so much more.

Both parents being able to access all of this information in one place will bring more organisation and clarity to the co-parenting situation. Being able to coordinate both the big things, such as birthdays and sleeping arrangements, as well as the smaller things, such as school events and excursions, in one application may help to soften some of the difficulties of co-parenting.

Co-parenting apps may also be successful in minimising conflict that may arise if the parents were to privately text one another or speak through a third-party. By encouraging parents to resolve smaller issues regarding the children between themselves and through an app, there may be less disagreement and less interactions with the court. This is also likely to have a flow-on effect and positively impact the psychological well-being of the child.

 

Examples of co-parenting apps

SharedCare

This app contains features such as a shared calendar, care arrangements (including requests to swap days), an expenses recorder (including reimbursement requests), and a group news feed where other carers including grandparents, nannies and aunts and uncles can keep updated on important milestones and news.

 

Parentship

Parentship utilises features including custom calendaring, digital documents, reminders, and a smart profile that contains everything about the child in one place.

 

Cozi

Cozi is a free app with a hassle-free family calendar and other features such as being able to create to-do lists and even share recipes where children may have allergies or dietary requirements.

 

Our Family Wizard
A popular app used globally with a great deal of options and functions, designed from the ground up for difficult situations in which the Family Court is involved. This app can also give children a controlled level of access to information, as well as third parties and legal practitioners, where relevant.

 

We note that this is just a small sample of the various applications on offer.

 

Are there any concerns?

Some co-parenting apps may require a small payment or a subscription fee. Also, co-parenting apps will only be successful if the parents are able to set aside their personal conflicts in order to put the children’s interests at their very highest concern.  Co-parenting apps may not be appropriate in all cases.

Unfortunately, these apps will not resolve all disputes that may arise in parenting matters; however, they allow for effective communication and synchronised scheduling which aims to benefit the children in the long term. Our lawyers can advise whether a co-parenting app is the right fit for your matter.

If you have concerns regarding a Parenting Matter, please contact Carter Dickens Lawyers on (08) 9408 5212 and we will endeavour to provide you with comprehensive legal advice to assist in your matter.

 

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

 

Pressure to Settle in Parenting Matters & Without Prejudice Offers

by

Parenting disputes affect people deeply. When accusations are being thrown around, and in particular when children are being withheld from a parent, tensions can run high. A person can feel a strong desire to agree to parenting arrangements they feel are unfair because they want it to be over, or want their children returned.

 During negotiations, you might receive a proposed “Minute of Consent Orders” for parenting arrangements that you don’t agree with, but you may feel tempted to sign them to see your kids again. In most cases, each parent will believe that what they are proposing is necessary for the best interests of the children, even though their beliefs differ. 

 In some circumstances however, a party might choose to withhold children as a strategy to get the other party to sign their preferred parenting orders – rather than because they believe they need to withhold the children to keep the children safe. This is rare, but does happen. 

 However, communications exchanging proposals to settle are typically ‘Without Prejudice’, which means that the proposed arrangements cannot be adduced in evidence should your dispute end up before a judge.  If you think someone is trying to pressure you to agree in a way that demonstrates their bad faith, you may want to show this to the Court, to have the Court to take this into account.

 However, the general rule for ‘Without Prejudice’ communications is that they cannot be shown to the Court.

 

Without Prejudice Communications

 The term ‘Without Prejudice’ invokes a particular kind of legal privilege, which is specifically permitted for negotiating settlements. The privilege is that that communication cannot be relied on by the other party in Court proceedings. For example, it cannot be introduced as evidence claiming, for example, to demonstrate the weakness of that party’s case.

 Providing the other party’s without prejudice offers and communication to the Court is typically disallowed, and if they are filed by the other party, they will be struck out by the Court in line with this privilege, and for good reason. This is because the ability to engage in ‘Without Prejudice’ communications is generally to the advantage of both parties, as it allows them to make offers to settle a matter without fear of having the offer brought up later.

 This applies in the Family Court, it can be found in the Family Law Rules at 10.2:

 FAMILY LAW RULES 2004 – RULE 10.02 OPEN AND “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” OFFER

 10.02(1) An offer to settle is made without prejudice (a without prejudice offer) unless the offer states that it is an open offer.

 10.02(2) A party must not mention the fact that a without prejudice offer has been made, or the terms of the offer:

 (a) in any document filed; or

 (b) at a hearing or trial.

 The rule against providing without prejudice communications to the Court is a part of a broader set of rules regarding evidence.

 

Family Court and the Rules of Evidence

 The Family Court has a number of notable exceptions to the normal rules of Evidence. The ability to quote children’s speech, when they are not giving evidence themselves, which would normally be a breach of the Rule of Evidence against Hearsay, is the most well-known example, located at 69ZV of the Family Law Act (“the Act”).

 Family Law however can involve a number of other exceptions to standard rules of evidence. More generally, 69ZT “Rules of evidence not to apply unless court decides,” specifies the parts of the Evidence Act (Cth), which codifies the principles of evidence, which the Court may decide whether or not to apply in child-related proceedings as per the considerations in that section, and what weight to give them. This includes documents and other evidence including demonstrations, experiments and inspections, and evidence that is hearsay, opinion, admissions, evidence of judgments and convictions, tendency and coincidence, credibility and character.

 The important principle to keep in mind is that in parenting matters, the primary consideration is the best interests of the children. What is in the best interests of the children is determined by consideration of primary and secondary factors at s60CC of the Family Law Act.

 One interesting example of a departure from normal legal principles regards ‘Without Prejudice’ communication. Typically, if a party tries to put ‘Without Prejudice’ communication before the Court as evidence, it will be struck out and not considered by the Court.

 

Can Without Prejudice Communications ever be Submitted to the Court?

 However, there are exceptions, generally and in the Family Law specific to the normal ‘Without Prejudice’ principles.

 Sometimes, without prejudice communications will include content which go towards demonstrating a fact of sufficient significance that the Court may choose to allow their entry into evidence.

In Parenting matters, the best interests of the children are the primary consideration, as per s60B and s60CA. As such, if the other party provides ‘Without Prejudice’ communications, such as an offer that provides for orders which implicitly contradicts other assertions that have been made in Court documents, the court may be willing to enter the ‘Without Prejudice’ communications into evidence.

 This has been discussed in the WA case S and K [2007] FCWA 17, where Her Honour Justice Crisford identifies, at 28-32:

 28 It goes without saying that it is important to preserve confidentiality in relation to offers. Full and frank negotiation needs to take place between parties so that matters may be resolved without the need for further court action. Often in children’s matters, the very avoidance of litigation can itself be in the best interests of the children. Whilst children are not parties to the proceedings, they are well and truly the subject of the proceedings. The principles governing these sorts of proceedings are very different to those relating to property matters.

 29 However, whilst it is important for negotiation that confidentially be preserved, especially in light of the rules of the Court, I am of the view that the preservation of confidentiality is not absolute. One of the main purposes of the Rules is that cases are resolved in a just manner. The Rules do not provide a complete code of the Court’s powers. Other powers are found in the provisions of various Acts, the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and the common law.

 30 Hutchings v Clarke may well stand for the proposition that the issue of legal professional privilege does not operate to exclude evidence if in the discretion of the trial Judge such evidence is required to be put before the Court in order to preserve the best interests of the child.

 31 There is no doubt that it is important to preserve confidentiality and to foster an environment that allows parties to negotiate without fear they will be compromised in an endeavour to settle matters. However, offers can be made for a number of reasons and the overarching principle is always the best interests of the child. It is not the sole consideration but it is the paramount one.

 32 The Court should not be precluded from obtaining information to ensure that the principle is met, especially in cases of such naked acrimony as this.

 

As such, if you have been sent ‘Without Prejudice’ communications in a Family Law matter, where untrue claims are made or strict orders are being sought when the other party does not actually require those Orders, the Court may be willing to accept that correspondence of an offer to settle into evidence. 

Such a circumstance might be withholding children except when supervised by a professional supervision agency; while simultaneously making an offer that involves children spending time without any external supervision. 

However, other avenues for adducing the same evidence ought to be pursued first. The Court will be very hesitant to override the general rule regarding ‘Without Prejudice’ offers, as ‘Without Prejudice’ offers are a very significant element which benefit the ability to conduct settlement negotiations, and this privilege will not be dismissed lightly.

Indeed, settling a parenting matter by agreement may, in many cases, be very much in the best interests of the child, as ongoing proceedings may very well put children under stress, increase hostility between parents, and potentially require the children to be involved in proceedings to some degree.

As such; the possibility of successful negotiations, and thus ability to engage in these negotiations ‘Without Prejudice’, towards reaching parenting orders both parties may not like but are prepared to accept may well be a better outcome than the outcome of ongoing proceedings even should the party’s preferred orders be made and their concerns legitimate, given the impact on the children of ongoing proceedings. 

If you need advice about your family court negotiations, please contact us on (08) 9408 5212 for a free telephone consultation. 

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific case in question.

The Pitfalls of Homemade Wills

by

Homemade Wills are a tempting proposition for those interested in reducing the costs associated with obtaining legal services. Whilst on the surface these Homemade Wills kits appear be straightforward and binding, this is not always the case. It is important to ensure that your Will is prepared in the proper legal manner so that your wishes are unambiguous, and your estate may be correctly dealt with at the time of your passing.

The common issues surrounding Homemade Wills have been exemplified in the Supreme Court of Western Australia’s recent case James Edward Donnelly as executor of the estate of Sarah Shulman v Donnelly 2020 WASC 254. In this decision, Master Sanderson at [13] heavily criticised the ambiguity of the Homemade Will in question, stating:

“Although it is a valid will because it complies with the provisions of the Wills Act apart from appointing the plaintiff as executor, it has no content. It makes no disposition. It is meaningless.”

In this case, despite there being every reason to believe that the deceased intended to leave her entire estate to the first defendant, even the most benign interpretation of the Homemade Will offered no benefit to the first defendant. Apart from being mentioned as executor of the Will, the first defendant was not mentioned at all – in fact, no-one was.

Master Sanderson suggests in this judgement that there is no question of the Will being ambiguous, as it simply remained silent on who was to receive the benefit (the beneficiaries of the Will). Through proper exercise of the construction of the Will, it was determined by Master Sanderson that, on the facts, he was satisfied that the deceased intended to leave her estate to the first defendant.

Although in this case the exercise of discretion fell in the favour of the defendant, this acts as a reminder as to the pitfalls of drafting Homemade Wills.

 

How do the Courts Construct an Ambiguous Wills?

You may be wondering what process is undertaken to properly “construct” or “read” an ambiguous will by the Courts? Construction of a Will is a two-step process:

  1. Firstly, the Will is to be read on its own without regard to any evidence. If this does not lead to an interpretation of the Will then an attempt must be made to deduce the intentions of the testator.
  2. If the intentions of the testator cannot be readily discerned for any reason, then the court should proceed to construe the Will with the assistance of cannons of construction. These cannons often allow a judicial officer to review extrinsic materials, as per section 28A of the Wills Act 1970 (WA), to better consider the intentions of the testator at the time of drafting the Will.

 

Common issues with Homemade Wills

Although use of these Homemade Wills kits may provide you a legally binding Will, it may not be drafted in such a way as to achieve what you truly intended. Common issues with Homemade Wills include the following:

  1. Failure to properly date the Will;
  2. Leaving the wrong assets or assets you are not entitled to distribute;
  3. Misunderstanding legal definitions;
  4. Losing the Will;
  5. Incorrectly witnessing documents;
  6. Unintended Tax Consequences;
  7. Appointing the wrong Executor;
  8. Ignoring potential and eligible beneficiaries; and
  9. Failing to provide for the guardianship of children.

 

Recent Judicial Commentary regarding Homemade Wills

Despite gaining popularity in recent years, Homemade Wills have been an enduring cause of concern within the Judicial system. Recent Western Australian examples which demonstrate this concern include the following:

Kossert v Ruggi as Executor of Will of Korps (No 2) [2012] WASC 191

Kenneth Martin J at [8] stated:

‘Sadly, as so many home-made wills seem to do because of a failure to receive proper legal advice, it throws up the question of [the deceased’s] failure to deal fully by his will with the one substantial asset he left, namely the house and land’

 

O’Brien, as Executor of Will of Hogan v Warburton [2012] WASC 82

EM Heenan J at [3] stated:

“ [the deceased’s] last will was prepared by him or at his direction apparently without any legal advice or assistance. Major difficulties have arisen in determining the proper construction of the testament and, in particular, whether or not it fails fully to dispose of the testator’s estate, so leaving a partial intestacy”

EM Heenan J at [58]:

“Obvious difficulties arise when parts of a will are ambiguous or, worse still, inconsistent. Such problems are often experienced in home-made wills such as this..”

 

Thomas v Pearman [2017] WASC 209

Master Sanderson at [1] criticised Homemade Wills, stating:

“The will and the codicil were home-made. They comprise 14 pages in all. They are a particularly egregious example of the folly of home-made wills.”

 

How can Carter Dickens Lawyers help?

Our expert lawyers are able to properly draft a will in the accepted legal manner, ensuring all of your wishes are to be fulfilled upon your passing. This will circumvent the ambiguous situations that often arise from Homemade Wills kits, and ensures that you can confidently have your Will executed as per your intentions.

At Carter Dickens Lawyers, we have the experience and knowledge to help you navigate this potentially complicated area of law. We understand the difficulties faced by families upon the death of a loved one, and we hope to ease this process by ensuring your final wishes are understood and binding.

Our Wills and Estates matters are provided on a fixed fee basis. Wills and Estates matters we may assist you with include the following:

  • Single Wills
  • Couples Wills
  • Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA)
  • Enduring Power of Guardianship (EPG)
  • Advanced Medical Directive
  • Probate Application
  • Letters of Administration (Deceased had no Will)

If you would like to discuss your Wills and Estates related matter, please contact Carter Dickens Lawyers on (08) 9408 5212.

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

 

Challenging a Child Support Assessment

by

The initial stage of separating from your partner is often the most difficult phase, especially when there are children involved. The transition from sharing care to being the primary carer often leaves single parents struggling to make ends meet. Child support is designed to alleviate this stress.

A child support assessment is made using one of various formulas, with the appropriate formula being determined by your individual circumstances. However, no two families are the same. We each have different lives, different needs and different circumstances. For this reason, it is sometimes arguable that your unique circumstances justify departing from the usual formula.

The Court will consider making a departure from the ordinary formula when:

  • a ground for departure in section 117(2)(a) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (‘the Act’) applies; and
  • it would be just and equitable or otherwise proper to make the order.

 

Step 1: Grounds for Departure

There are a number of grounds for departure outlined in section 117(2) of the Act. In summary, these grounds are as follows:

  • In the special circumstances of the case, the non-carer parent’s capacity to provide financial support is significantly reduced because of their duty to maintain themselves, another child or any other dependant person.
  • In the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected:
    • because of high costs involved in enabling a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child;
    • because of special needs of the child;
    • because of high child care costs in relation to the child; or
    • because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in the manner that was expected by his or her parents.
  • In the special circumstances of the case, application of the formula would be unjust and inequitable because of the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of either of the children or the parents.

The common denominator in all of the grounds is the phrase ‘in the special circumstances of the case’. So, what does this mean?

When discussing the meaning of this phrase, the Family Court in Gyselman & Gyselman (1992) 15 Fam LR 219 stated, “Whilst it is not possible to define with precision the meaning of that term, as a generality it is intended to emphasize that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. That is, the intention of the Legislature is that the Court will not interfere with the administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases.”

There is no one definition of what exactly a ‘special circumstance’ is, and this is intentional. The term is broad and flexible enough to cover a wide variety of circumstances. That being said, the following are examples of circumstances which have been held by the Court to be ‘special’:

  • In L and L [2003] FMCAfam 223, the liable parent was ordered to contribute to private school fees for a child with special needs. The Court held that the ‘special circumstances’ in this case were the child’s need for medical care, which was not covered by medical insurance, and her need to be encouraged to attend school. As the child was already enrolled in a private school, the non-liable parent was ordered to contribute to the fees.
  • In Bassingthwaighte and Leane (1993) 16 Fam LR 918, the father was an airline pilot who owned a farm, which operated at a loss. While the father’s taxable income was significantly reduced, the actual income he received was not. The Court allowed a departure from the usual assessment, in that his income without the reductions for tax losses was considered for the purpose of the assessment.
  •  In Dwyer and McGuire (1993) 17 Fam LR 42, the father owned a number of farming properties with his family, several of which were in the father’s sole name. The properties were unencumbered and the farming business had little debt. The father’s substantial assets established a ground for departure, and the Court ordered that the assessment would take these assets into account.

Step 2: Just and Equitable

The Court may only make a particular departure order if it is satisfied that doing so would be just and equitable to the child and both parents. Here, the Court looks at the overarching circumstances, having regard to:

  • the nature and duty of a parent to maintain a child;
  • the proper needs of the children;
  • the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child and each of the parents;
  • the commitments of each parent that are necessary to enable the parent to support themselves or any other child or dependant;
  • the direct and indirect costs incurred by the carer entitled to child support in providing that care; and
  • any hardship that would be caused to the child and the parents if the order was either made or refused.

 

How can a lawyer help?

A lawyer with experience will be able to provide you with the knowledge and assistance you need to determine the grounds of departure which likely apply, whether your circumstances are special, and what kinds of departure order(s) would be just and equitable in your circumstances.

Importantly, a lawyer can also help you gather the evidence you need to support your case through different processes, such as disclosure. This is where both sides to the proceedings have an obligation to provide to the other party all relevant documents and material in their possession.

At Carter Dickens Lawyer, we have the experience and knowledge to help you navigate this complicated area of law to ensure that you put the best case forward, so please do not hesitate to contact our office for more information.

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

 

Will my illness or disability lead to an adjustment in Financial Orders?

by

Often during the course of property settlements, it is asserted by one of the parties that they ‘deserve’ a larger portion of the asset pool due to reliance on certain factors. The factors relied upon are found in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in particular Section 75(2) for married couples, and Section 90SF(3) for de-facto couples. Application of these provisions is seen as the third step (out of four) that Australian Courts typically undertake in making Financial Orders.

The four steps undertaken by Courts are generally set out as follows:

  • Identify and value the assets, liabilities and resources of the parties;
  • Consider the contributions of the parties made throughout the relationship;
  • Consider the future needs of each party; and
  • Determine whether the proposed settlement is just and equitable.

Essentially, at the third step the Court evaluates the future needs of the parties taking into account their individual circumstances. The aforementioned provisions set out 19 factors that may be taken into account by the Court in evaluating the extent of each parties’ future needs. The relevant subsections relating to adjustments for disability and illness are the following:

  • The age and state of health of each of the parties (s 75(2)(a)); and
  • The income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment (s75(2)(b)).

Unfortunately, many Australians face challenges in their everyday lives associated with ongoing disabilities or illnesses. At Carter Dickens Lawyers we seek to assist those who may be vulnerable in financial settlements, and ensure they are aware of their rights and the impact their disability may have upon the expected distribution percentage they would receive from a Court ordered financial settlement.

 

Am I likely to receive an adjustment in my favour due to my disability?

The assessment of ‘future needs’ remains a discretionary activity undertaken by the Court. Therefore, it is difficult to say with confidence that an ongoing disability or illness will guarantee a percentage adjustment in your favour by the Courts.

However, there are precedent cases which appear to suggest a 5-15% adjustment may be made where one party suffers from disabilities and this impacts their ability to achieve gainful employment in the future. In particular, the case of Dritsas v Wilson [2008] FMCAfam 44 saw a section 75(2) adjustment in the wife’s favour of 10 per cent where the potential of future employment was essentially non-existent due to the extent of the wife’s disabilities and her age.

Although there appears to be precedent for making these adjustments, and the legislation specifically makes reference to age, health and the ability to gain meaningful work – each case is determined on an individual basis. We therefore recommend you seek legal advice on this matter if you are either going through a financial separation or are planning on seeking financial orders.

 

What if both myself and my ex suffer from disabilities/illnesses?

Unlike the circumstances aforementioned, in some cases both of the parties to a financial separation suffer from illnesses or disabilities respectively. This situation creates greater difficulties for Courts in evaluating the ‘future needs’ of the parties as both may have their own valid claims.

Again, this situation would see the courts exercise their discretion, and all factors would be evaluated prior to any Order is made. However, Nathan & Nathan [2007] FamCA 589 was an example where the Family Court of Australia deemed it equitable to make no adjustment. In this case, Justice Kay at [23] stated no adjustment would be made out for the following reasons:

“A global view of this case shows two people with very limited earning capacity, two people with significant medical disabilities.  They are both aged 46.  Neither of them has a very secure economic future to look forward to.  The husband appears able to live on his wits.  The wife has secure employment at least with some modest superannuation available to her.  It does not seem to me to be a case in which any s 75(2) adjustment is appropriate.”

Essentially, where in the Courts discretion the parties equally suffer from limited earning capacities and significant medical disabilities/illnesses, it may be just and equitable to make no adjustment for future needs, instead opting for an equal split of the asset pool.

From the situations discussed, it is clear that the Court is empathetic to the plight faced by those with illnesses and disabilities; however, the extent to which this will impact Financial Orders depends on scope of the facts at hand. If you believe that the section 75(2) factors discussed in this article may apply to your circumstances, please contact Carter Dickens Lawyers on (08) 9408 5212 for a free 15-minute consultation with one of our lawyers.

Carter Dickens Lawyers specialise in Family Law and Financial Disputes. We pride ourselves on our ability to provide legal assistance and advice, including on niche areas of law, such as the impact of disabilities on expected percentage distributions from Financial Orders. We will ensure that you are fully informed of any rights and risks associated with your divorce or financial matter.

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

Pet Custody

by

The issue of ‘Pet Custody’ has become a prominent concern in the Australian legal landscape. Despite often treating our pets as members of the family, Australian Family Law continues to view our pets as a form of ‘personal property’. As such, pets are treated like other items in the asset pool, and may be divided between the parties.

 

The ‘Value’ of Pets

Unfortunately, the value we attribute to our pets does not often reflect the market value Courts will allocate to them. Unless the pet is a purebred or pedigree show dog, there is likely only a nominal value attributed to the pet in comparison to other relationship assets.

Should a significant value be attributed to the pet for particular reasons, it may be necessary to provide evidence to the Family Court verifying this amount.

 

How is Pet Custody decided?

Courts are generally reluctant to get involved in lengthy arguments between parties regarding the custody of their pets. The preferred resolution is often for parties to settle between themselves a custody plan for the retention of their pets. Should Family Court orders be required, the resolution of this matter is often conducted in a similar vein to that of other personal property allocations.

The following are a range of discretionary factors the Family Court may take into account in determining which party retains ownership and care of the family pet:

  • Which parties’ name the pet is registered in.
  • Which party undertakes the majority of the responsibilities involved in caring for the pet (day to day care)
  • Which party has appropriate housing for the pet and who can satisfy the pets future needs.
  • The ability to pay for stabling or training needs, particularly if the pet is a horse or other farm animal (economic needs).

 

Can you have Shared Custody?

Despite these factors often resulting in sole custody by a single party, it is well within the courts discretion to make orders to the effect of a ‘shared custody’ plan. Such orders are unlikely to be made, unless the orders are consented to by both parties.

Instances where the court is likely to make this type of order is where it directly reflects the ‘best interests’ of children. Should there be children of the relationship in addition to a family pet, it may be deemed by the Family Court to be in the children’s best interests for the pet to follow them between their parents’ homes. This may give the children a sense of familiarity and stability following the breakdown of their parent’s relationship. Additionally, the pet may provide a therapeutic or medical benefit which requires shared custody.

Carter Dickens Lawyers excel at providing legal assistance in all areas of Family Law. We will ensure that you are made aware of all options moving forward and may aid you in the drafting of orders pertaining to the ownership, possession and shared care of your pets.

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

Contact Us

Suite 102, 126 Grand Boulevard, Joondalup WA 6027

Phone: (08) 9408 5212

info@cdlawyers.com.au