Family Court Bulletin

Transcription

1 Family Court Bulletin Issue 8 July 2011 Supporting the strengthening of Zimbabwe s family law court system In 2010 the Australian Government asked the Family Court of Australia to provide a representative to attend a family law conference in Zimbabwe. The conference was to facilitate the creation of a Family Court system and to call upon the support of the Zimbabwean Government, Zimbabwean opposition, traditional chiefs, the High Court of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwean Magistrates Court, women lawyers and human rights lawyers. Justice Robert Benjamin from the Family Court of Australia attended along with Professor Philippa Kruger of the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. The cost of Justice Benjamin s visit was funded by the Australian Government through AusAID. The conference was a success with ministers of both the Government and the Opposition, together with the tribal leaders and other stakeholders agreeing to the creation of a formal Family Court structure. The delegates agreed on a model structure with joint commissions in the General High Court of Zimbabwe and Magistrates Court, to assist with the provision of support services. It was agreed that support services were needed in the areas of counselling and legal services for litigants. All participants acknowledged that the winner take all approach is not conclusive for family law cases, but rather the proceedings should be conducted on merit, rather than technicalities. It was also noted that there needs to be a capacity for strengthening the skills of court personnel to deal with family law matters. The ministers and policy makers agreed that legislation ought to be put in place. The substance of that legislation is to reflect the general directions of the conference. Justice Benjamin has been invited to return to spend time with judges of the High Court of Zimbabwe, a Professor of Law at the University of Zimbabwe and other key stakeholders to assist in the drafting of the legislation and give effect to the recommendations given by the committee. L-R: Justice Guvava of the High Court of Zimbabwe, Justice Benjamin of the Family Court of Australia and Judge Mawadze from the High Court of Zimbabwe In this Issue 8 Judgments of interest 8 efiling 8 Family Violence Best Practice Principles 8 Improving services for Indigenous Australians

2 From the Chief Justice On 28 April 2011, I made a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee as part of their inquiry into the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill This followed my submission to Government on the earlier exposure draft of the Bill. I prepared the submission in consultation with the Court s Law Reform Committee, which is chaired by Justice Strickland. The Bill is in two parts Schedule 1, which makes substantive changes to the Family Law Act and Schedule 2, which makes technical amendments. As the Law Reform Committee had previously commented on the technical amendments, my comments were confined to the substantive amendments. I told the Committee I was supportive of the Bill, as it would provide better protection for families and children at risk of violence and abuse. Chief Justice Diana Bryant The Courts and DHS (Vic) renew protocol The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court have worked closely with Victoria s Department of Human Services (DHS) to develop a revised protocol between the three organisations which is aimed to strengthen connections and to ensure that a child s need for protection is met and to ensure the best possible outcomes for a child. The recently published protocol sets out: 8 A summary of the relevant legislation 8 The roles of DHS, Victoria Police and the courts 8 How notifications (reports) are made to DHS by parties or court personnel and the timelines for responses by DHS 8 The action undertaken by DHS in response to a request to intervene or a notification 8 Responsibilities of DHS and the Courts when exchanging information, and 8 Identification of the appropriate jurisdiction. Of particular interest and relevance to practitioners outlined in the protocol are details pertaining to obtaining information from the department, either by way of subpoena and/ or section 69ZW of the Family Law Act and the relevant timelines. A copy of the protocol will be available from My principal concern is that the Bill applies to proceedings instituted before, on and after the commencement date. That includes the matters that are part-heard or where judgment is reserved. It would also affect appeals. As I pointed out to the Committee, this is likely to mean more cost and delay for parties involved in those types of proceedings. I also commented on various other provisions of the bill, such as the new section 67ZBA, which is intended to replace section 60K, the new obligation on the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court to inquire about family violence, and possible resourcing implications for both courts. I emphasised that further work needed to be done on the likely impact of the Bill on court resources. The Family Law Section of the Law Council made a submission that was substantially in support of mine. I would like to thank the Law Reform Committee, and particularly Justice Strickland and Angela Filippello, for their assistance in preparing the submission. A copy of the submission is available at: familyviolence/submissions.htm Two years ago, the Family Court developed a range of best practice principles to provide judicial decision makers with practical guidance, in dealing with matters in which a notice has been filed alleging family violence, or the risk of family violence, or abuse or the risk of abuse. These principles have been under review by the family violence committee which is represented by both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The revised range of principles is expected to be released in July 2011 (see page 3 for more details). The Federal Budget which was handed down by the Treasurer in May, has implications for both the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court mainly in regard to funding and staffing levels. The courts financial position will also be affected by a reduction of funding of $0.830m arising from a change in the efficiency dividend rate from 1.25 per cent in to 1.50 per cent in continued page 3 2 Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July 2011

3 The courts will, overall, be operating with less in which will result in the reduction of the number of staff members within the Family Court and possibly further impact the services provided by the courts. An interesting area of law that the Family Court deals with, relates to special medical procedures. These cases raise difficult ethical, legal and social issues. An example of one case is the matter known as Baby D (for more information see page 5). Justice Murphy and I have recently attended seminars in Melbourne and Brisbane with various medical practitioners to discuss these complex issues and particularly about the circumstances in which a decision otherwise made by the parents and the treating doctors should be brought to court to enable the court to exercise a supervisory role. On 26 April 2011, the Honourable Hubert Frederico (affectionately known as Freddie to all his colleagues) died after a long struggle with illness. He served on the Court from 1976 until He was appointed a Judge Administrator when that office was created, and until not long before his retirement was responsible for the management of the Melbourne registry. He is fondly remembered for the years he ran the busy duty list with equanimity, dispensing prompt, fair and unfailingly consistent justice to all who came before him. In June, Justice Bennett and I attended a Special Commission meeting on the Child Abduction Convention and the Child Protection Convention at the Hague, with representatives of the 82 member states as part of the Australian delegation. The Adbuction Convention in particular is a very important Convention and the Hague Permanent Bureau is very supportive of it. One of the matters for discussion was the news that Japan had agreed to sign the Convention and many countries in our region are showing a similar interest. As expected, it has been a very busy first half of the year. The Court has had five retirements in the first half of the year and one more will occur at the end of July. One appointment has been made to the Brisbane Registry and there will be an appointment in Mebourne and Sydney in the next few months. Revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles The Best Practice Principles were first developed in 2009 by the Family Court s Family Violence Committee. They were the last initiative to be implemented under the Family Court s Family Violence Strategy ( ). Since 2009, the Family Violence Committee has reconvened as a joint committee, comprising representatives from the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The joint Family Violence Committee has reviewed and updated the Family Violence Best Practice Principles to ensure they are of optimal assistance to their intended audiences. Protecting families and particularly children who are engaged with the family law system from the effects of family violence is a priority for both courts. The revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles assist in this critically important task by acting as a checklist of matters that judges, federal magistrates, court staff, legal professionals and litigants may wish to have regard to at each stage of the litigation process. The committee appreciates that the Government has decided to proceed with amendments to the Family Law Act in the area of family violence. The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 is before Parliament at time of publishing. The committee considered delaying the release of the updated Best Practice Principles until the fate of those amendments was known, however, due to some uncertainty as to timing, it was decided to press ahead. The Best Practice Principles are released in the understanding that further revision will be required if the proposed family violence amendments pass into law. The revised version of the Family Violence Best Practice Principles will be launched in July 2011 by the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and Attorney-General. Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July

4 Judgments of interest Re: Bernadette [2011] FamCAFC 50 Bryant CJ, O Ryan & Strickland JJ The Full Court was asked to consider an interesting jurisdictional question in relation to the power of the Family Court to make orders in special medical procedure cases in relation to a child who had turned 18 years of age after the decision but before the appeal. At trial, Collier J made orders that permitted Bernadette to commence hormonal treatment to block the onset of puberty in order to treat her condition of transsexualism. Bernadette s parents sought to challenge the Court s jurisdiction to make the orders on the basis that neither Bernadette herself, or the parents in the alternative, should have been able to make a decision about her treatment as an aspect of their parental responsibility. In essence, the parents sought to clarify which types of medical procedures involving children required authorisation from the Family Court and what might be decided within a family. Importantly, his Honour s orders were not the subject of appeal. Complicating the appeal proceedings was the fact that Bernadette had turned 18 years of age prior to the hearing of the appeal. Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), parenting orders can only be made with respect to children under the age of 18 years. Consequently, the Full Court had to determine whether the appeal was an academic or moot exercise. The Full Court had to determine whether or not the welfare power or parens patriae power of the Court had the same age restriction as a parenting order. If it did not, the remaining question was whether the Family Court could make an order in relation to a child up until the child had reached the age of 21 years (21 years being the age of majority at the time of the writing of the Constitution which provides the source of power for legislation). The Full Court undertook an extensive analysis of the Act and High Court of Australia case law about the meaning of the words adult, infant and child. The Full Court also considered what powers had been referred by the state and territory Governments to the Commonwealth in relation to the welfare of children since the Act was first enacted. As a result of this analysis, the Full Court concluded the Family Court is not able to make orders under the welfare power in respect of a child who is over the age of 18 years. The Full Court declined to answer the question as to whether or not an order made by the Court under the welfare power was a parenting order. The Full Court did, however, characterise its jurisdiction in relation to certain special medical procedures as supervisory of parental responsibility. The appeal was dismissed, but an appeal on another similar matter has been filed so the question of whether the parents need the Court s consent to continue treatment will be heard later in the year. 4 Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July 2011

5 Re: Baby D (No. 2) [2011] FamCA 176 Young J Baby D developed complications arising from an upper airway obstruction due to inflammation and narrowing of her larynx. The parents of Baby D sought orders from the Family Court for a procedure known as extubation, with life prolonging treatment to be withheld thereafter. These orders were sought following a recommendation from the relevant Hospital s Ethics Committee. The Committee concluded that it was in Baby D s best interests to be extubated and for life prolonging treatment to be withheld. Young J was asked to consider the breadth of the Family Court s jurisdiction to make orders in respect of certain special medical procedures, including examining the decision of the High Court of Australia in Marion s Case (1992) 175 CLR 218 (which involved the power of the Family Court to authorise the sterilisation of an intellectually disabled child). His Honour also considered the definition of a special medical procedure and some of the types of matters that had come before the Family Court in recent years. His Honour concluded that the definition of a special medical procedure suggests that the special component relates to procedures that are not performed for the treatment of a bodily malfunction or disease. Young J stated that it was undesirable for the Family Court to determine all medical treatment matters which would ordinarily be within the ambit of a parent s responsibility. His Honour concluded that it was appropriate to determine an application that is made to the Family Court, where the matter is not to avoid parental responsibility, or for an ulterior or improper purpose. His Honour observed that the decision about Baby D s treatment, while being invasive, was within the ambit of the parents responsibility in respect of the health of Baby D and her care, welfare and development. Young J made orders as sought by the parents on the basis that it was in Baby D s best interests. Note: In both Re: Bernadette and Re: Baby D (No. 2), their Honours respectively considered and endorsed parts of the Judgment of Murphy J in Re: Sean & Russell (Special Medical Procedures) [2010] FamCA 948 (where two families sought authorisation for gonadectomies of children aged 18 months and 3 ½ years). Murphy J considered a number of the important policy considerations and the rationale for having the Family Court, rather than parents, make certain medical decisions in respect of children. His Honour did, however, provide a cautionary note (as follows): 1 In my view, the law should tread very lightly in seeking to intrude in, or impose itself upon, those decisions. It would in my respectful view be sad indeed if the courtroom was to replace a caring, holistic environment within which approach by parents and doctors alike could deal with the (admittedly extremely difficult) medical and other decisions that need to be made. 1 Re: Sean & Russell (Special Medical Procedures) [2010] FamCA 948, [91]. Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July

6 News and information Commonwealth Courts Portal and efiling In March 2011 the Portal reached a new milestone achieving one million page loads for the month. April April % increase in 12 months Registered law firms Registered practitioners Total registered family law users (incl SRLs) Documents continue to be efiled in increasing numbers: By April Average 2011 Weekly Filings Divorces Supplementary documents Initiating applications 82 9 Responses What s recently changed on the Portal? The Response to Initiating Application eform went live on 26 March 2011, with 45 efilings submitted by April The process for efiling a Response is the same as for the Initiating Application: l complete the eform l l l upload supplementary documents as required pay by credit card, and print off the PDF copy for service. In the latest release, the courts provided an alternative way for law firms to efile Initiating Applications and Responses. While firms can already use the existing eforms, this sometimes means double-handling as party details have to be re-entered into their integrated accounting/ precedent management systems. To overcome this, the courts have now provided special templates for these two documents, which firms can use in their existing systems and can be simply uploaded to the Portal. Precedent management system providers will now be encouraged to include these templates in their next update releases, so that firms can take advantage of this new way of efiling. Recognition for former Chief Justice Former Family Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC has been awarded the 2011 Australia Post Australian Legends Award. Elizabeth Evatt, who was recognised along with four other recipients, received the award for her work in advancing gender equality throughout the 1970s. She was the first woman to preside over an Australian federal court, the inaugural chief judge of the Family Court of Australia and served as the Chair of the UNCommittee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women for two years. As part of the award, Elizabeth Evatt is featured on this year s Australia Day stamp series which were released on 20 January The announcement of this award coincided with the centenary of International Women s Day, which was celebrated on 8 March Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July 2011

7 Forms and publications update Application for Divorce form The Family Law Courts website has previously provided access to the Application for Divorce Kit and the Application for Divorce form. To encourage clients and solicitors to only use the Application for Divorce Kit, which allows them to receive all the information required to fill out the form, the Application for Divorce form has been removed from the Family Law Courts website ( Additional information about fees, court attendance and efiling has been added to the Application for Divorce Kit page on the Family Law Courts website. If clients and solicitors only require the actual application (i.e. without the Kit section), they simply need to choose pages when printing. However, they should note that the help sections in the application refer back to the Kit. The Application for Divorce can also be efiled through the Commonwealth Courts Portal at Natural Disaster Form In response to the devastating events of the January 2011 floods in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, a new form has been created for natural disasters. The form allows any clients who are directly affected by a natural disaster to replace their damaged or missing documents free of charge. This form replaces the old 2009 Victorian Bushfires form. More details can be found on the Family Law Courts website at Application for Consent Orders In late 2010, significant changes were made to the Application for Consent Orders form and kit. The new versions are now available on the Family Law Courts website ( or hard copies can be ordered using the order form under the forms section of the Family Law Courts website. For more information on this or other forms, please contact [email protected] Notice of ceasing to act The Family Law Rules 2004 (Rule 8.04) and the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Rules 9.01, 9.02 and 9.03) differ as to what is required to be done both prior to and after a solicitor ceases to act for a party to proceedings. The Family Court form, Notice of Ceasing to Act, has offered a tick box option for that form to be used in either court. This has caused confusion and difficulties for solicitors, parties to proceedings and the two courts because of the differing requirements. To overcome this confusion, the FMC checkbox on the Family Court Notice of Ceasing to Act form has been removed and this form is no longer permitted to be filed in the Federal Magistrates Court. Only the approved forms unique to each court may be used and filed as follows: 8 Family Court: Notice of Ceasing to Act 8 Federal Magistrates Court: Notice of withdrawal as lawyer No substitution is permitted. For more information see: 8 Family Law Rules 2004, Rule Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Rules 9.01, 9.02 and 9.03 Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July

8 News and information [continued] In 2010, the joint Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court Indigenous Working Group, chaired by Justice Benjamin and Federal Magistrate Donald, engaged Stephen Ralph, an independent Aboriginal consultant, to undertake a study of the views and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families who had recently been involved in family law proceedings. Mr Ralph has extensive experience in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in the area of family law. The study aims to examine the interface between Aboriginal families and the Family Law Courts. The research will cover issues of access to justice and steps towards improved service delivery. It will also help the courts develop a clear understanding of how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people access the Family Law Courts, how they utilise the services provided by the courts, and their experience of litigating their family disputes. The study is seeking to develop an evidence base that will allow the Family Law Courts to review policies and practices regarding access to justice for Indigenous Australians who are involved in family law proceedings. The study to date has examined the experiences and perceptions of Indigenous Australians who have recently litigated in the Family Law Courts and compared their experiences and perceptions with that of a representative sample of non-indigenous Australians. The study has also involved interviews with other stakeholders such as legal practitioners working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The qualitative data that this will provide will enhance and complement the data gained from direct interviews and surveys with Indigenous and non-indigenous clients. The committee expects to release the report in late October Improving services for Indigenous Australians Family Law Courts client satisfaction survey The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court administration is conducting a client satisfaction survey in late June 2011, to gather insights on litigants and lawyers experiences of our service and the courts environment. The survey will run until the end of July Questions can be ed to : [email protected] The purpose of the survey is to gauge the level of user satisfaction with processes and services including court facilities, interactions with users of the court, in-court facilities, in-court interactions and security requirements. The survey, which will be conducted by volunteers at major registries, will cover family law only and include litigants, lawyers, family and friends, and people who are visiting for general enquiry purposes. It will not include evaluation of judge s decisions. It is hoped that the survey will become an annual activity. 8 Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July 2011

9 Appointments and retirements Recent judicial appointments Justice Colin Forrest Justice Margaret Cleary Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace Justice William Johnston Justice Ian Loughnan Justice Michael Kent Justice Michael Kent was appointed as a judge of the Family Court of Australia on 20 June His Honour holds a Bachelor of Laws from the Queensland University of Technology and was admitted as a solicitor to the Supreme Court of Queensland in Justice Kent commenced at Lyons Solicitors in 1997 as an article clerk before becoming a solicitor, then an associate and finally a partner. In 1989 Justice Kent worked with a client s operation restructure in Australia and overseas before returning to Lyons Solicitors at the end of He was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Justice Kent has lectured on company law at the Australian Institute of Company Directors, he was appointed Senior Counsel in 2007, is the current Chair of the Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators, is a member of the Executive of the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia and is a member of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee of the Law Council of Australia. Justice Kent will be sworn in at the Brisbane Registry on 12 July Photos from Justice Kent s ceremonial sitting will be available in the next issue of Family Court Bulletin. Justice Colin Forrest Justice Forrest holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of New South Wales and was admitted as a barrister to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in From 1987 to 1988, His Honour worked as an associate to the then President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Justice Michael Kirby, and then as a solicitor at Goss Downey Carne between 1988 and His Honour was admitted to the Queensland Bar in 1990 and has practised predominately in family, child support and de facto relationship law, equity, wills and estate litigation. From 2001 to 2005, he served as Deputy Public Interest Monitor in Queensland, and has been Public Interest Monitor since Justice Forrest is also an approved mediator of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Justice Forrest was sworn in on 2 February 2011 and assigned to the Brisbane registry. Justice Margaret Cleary Justice Cleary holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Sydney and was admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Her Honour worked as a Legal Clerk with the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales between 1978 and 1981, and as a solicitor between 1982 and She was admitted to the Bar in 1986 and has specialised in serious children s family law cases. Her work has also included property cases and appellate work. Justice Cleary was sworn in on 8 July 2010 and assigned to the Parramatta registry. Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace Justice Ainslie-Wallace holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of New South Wales and was admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Her Honour was appointed an acting judge of the District Court of New South Wales in 1996 and has been a judge of that Court since She is currently a Deputy Chair of the New South Wales Medical Tribunal. Her Honour s interest in family law stems from her practice as a barrister, in which her principal area of practice was family and children s law. continued page 10 Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July

10 Appointments and retirements [continued] Recent judicial appointments [continued] Justice Ainslie-Wallace was sworn in on 9 July 2010 and assigned to the Sydney registry. She is also assigned to the Family Court s Appeal Division. Justice William Johnston Justice Johnston holds a Bachelor of Laws from the Australian National University. After being admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1972 his Honour worked as a practising solicitor in regional New South Wales. His Honour subsequently worked as an officer of the Commonwealth Attorney General s Department in Canberra between 1973 and He joined the Family Court in 1980 as a Deputy Registrar, becoming the Court s Principal Registrar in In 1989 Mr Johnston returned to legal practice as a specialist family law solicitor. In 1990 he was appointed as a judicial registrar and he remained in that role until his appointment as a judge of the Family Court. Justice Johnston was sworn in on 12 July 2010 and assigned to the Parramatta and Sydney registries. Justice Ian Loughnan Justice Ian Loughnan holds a Diploma in Law with the NSW Barristers Admission Board and was admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Early in his career, his Honour held various clerical and administrative positions with the Family Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and with the Family Court. From 1982 until 1984 he was Deputy District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy, and Deputy Registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He was Deputy Registrar and Principal Registrar of the Family Court from 1984 until 1995, when he was appointed as a Judicial Registrar of the Family Court. Justice Loughnan was sworn in on 12 July 201 and assigned to the Parramatta and Sydney registries. Retirements Justice Boland Justice Cohen Justice O Ryan Justice Barry Justice Rose Justice Boland Justice Boland retired on 3 February 2011 after 11 years of service to the Family Court. Justice Boland had a long and distinguished career. Her Honour had an excellent reputation as a business lawyer and was renowned for her expertise in consumer, medical, health, trade practices and product liability law. In 1991 Her Honour completed a Master of Laws at the University of Sydney, followed by two specialist accreditations from the Law Society of New South Wales: in family law in 1993, and advocacy in Justice Boland was a well respected and gifted jurist, but was also known for her generosity within the legal community. She served in a range of capacities within a number of community, government and legal bodies. Justice Boland was appointed as a judge of the Appeal Division of the Family Court in Justice Cohen Honourable Justice John Cohen retired from the Family Court after 22 years of service on 4 March After briefly studying medicine, Justice Cohen shifted his focus and decided to study for the Barrister s Admission Board exams. His Honour drove taxis to pay for his legal studies until he was called to the Bar in May Justice Cohen was elevated to the bench in February 1989 where he stayed until his retirement. continued page Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July 2011

11 Justice O Ryan Justice O Ryan retired on 15 March 2011 after 16 years as a judge of the Family Court. His Honour served at first instance until August 2008, when he was appointed to the Appeal Division of the Court. His Honour completed a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Sydney in 1971 and was admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court NSW in May In 1975 His Honour was admitted to the NSW Bar and in September 1990 was appointed a member of the NSW Inner Bar (Queens Counsel). In 1991 he was appointed as an Acting Judge in the NSW District Court until his appointment with the Family Court. During His Honour s time with the Court he was a member of the Chief Justice s Consultative Committee, the Simplification of Procedures Committee, the Future Directions Committee, the National Case Management Committee and the Remuneration Committee. He was Chair of the Law Reform Committee, the Pre-Trial Management Committee and the Children s Cases Programme Committee. He was also the Administrative Judge for NSW and the ACT for many years, as well as the complex cases Judge, alongside Justice Moore in the Sydney registry. His Honour was instrumental in the introduction and implementation of the Children s Cases Program (Less Adversarial Trial) to the Court. Justice Barry On 27 June 2011 Justice James Barry retired from the Family Court of Australia after 27½ years of service. In December 1983, His Honour was the first judge appointed to the Townsville registry of the Court. He served in Townsville from 1983 until 2000 when he transferred to Brisbane. He has remained at the Brisbane registry until his retirement. In 1988 His Honour was also appointed a Presidential Member of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal. During his period in office, His Honour has held the position of Chairman of the Rules Committee as well as Judge Administrator of the Brisbane registry. Justice Rose On 1 July 2011 the Honourable Justice Peter Rose was farewelled preparatory to his retirement by a Ceremonial Sitting of the Court at the Sydney registry. Justice Rose was appointed to the Bench on 21 December 1998 principally sitting at the Sydney registry. During His Honour s judicial service with the Court he fulfilled the role of Case Management Judge for the Sydney region for three and a half years. Justice Rose was also the Court s delegate to the Governing Council of the Judicial Conference of Australia and a member of a number of court committees. His Honour has initiated and supported advocacy courses and has recently been the Court s representative at a number of seminars in China. Administrative appointment Appointment of Principal, Child Dispute Services Pam Hemphill was appointed Principal of Child Dispute Services in April Pam has worked in the United Kingdom and in South Australia, primarily in the child protection, health, mental health and community sectors. She joined the Court in 2000 as the Director of Court Counselling based in Adelaide. She has also worked as Acting Registry Manager in Adelaide and Melbourne, Senior Advisor, Child Dispute Services and more recently a Senior Family Consultant. Pam has served on a wide range of court and inter-court committees. She has contributed to a number of court initiatives including the development and implementation of the Child Responsive Program. Pam holds a Joint Honours Degree in Modern languages and Literature, a Master of Social Work, a Post Graduate Certificate in teaching and a Post Graduate Certificate of Business Management. The Principal Child Dispute Services is responsible for advising the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive Officer on the provision of quality child dispute services to the Court and ensuring that the services delivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with the strategic and business objectives of the Court. The Principal also has responsibility for the development of strategic external relationships that promote and position the child dispute services of the Court within the family law framework. Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July

12 Vale The Hon Hubert Frederico The death of the Honourable Hubert Frederico on Wednesday 27 April 2011 at the age of 79 closes an important chapter in the history of the Court. He was the eldest of a large family and followed his father, who was a successful barrister, QC and County Court Judge, into a career in the law. He had four children with his first wife, Beth, who tragically died of cancer in 1978, leaving him with the care of four young children. He later married Genny, who survives him and with whom he had two further children. He was appointed to the Court in 1976 after a successful career at the Victorian Bar and contributed much over the next 27 years to this Court as a judge, as a judicial administrator and above all as a delightful human being. He was known to his many friends as Freddie and until shortly prior to his retirement in 2003 he was the Judge Administrator of the Southern Region of the Court, comprising Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, a position that he held since I received enormous support, assistance and wise counsel from Freddie during my time as Chief Justice and I greatly valued his friendship. He was a fine trial and appellate judge and as a family man had a good understanding of family and children s issues. He brought those skills to a fine pitch in the Practice Court in Melbourne, where he sat frequently when Judge Administrator. He showed amazing patience with unrepresented and difficult litigants and earned a grudging respect from some of the latter. He was always very interested in and supportive of staff, who held him in high regard in all registries. He also supervised the planning of the Melbourne building from the Family Court point of view. Throughout the whole of his time as Judge Administrator, he was ably assisted and supported by his associate, Pam Carnell. He had a remarkable alternative career as a rower, rowing coach and rowing administrator coaching State and International crews, one of which became the first Australian crew to win an international gold medal and was President of Rowing Victoria for 20 years. The Family Court of Australia is very much in his debt and I am sure that I speak for all who knew him in expressing our sympathies to Genny, his brother and sisters, children and grandchildren. The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC Former Chief Justice Further Information For more information about this publication including ordering additional copies or to make changes to your mailing details (including removal from the mailing list) contact the Family Law Courts National Communication Office. T (02) F (02) E [email protected] 12 Family Court Bulletin8Issue 8 July 2011