Digital Divorce

More than ever before, technology is being used as evidence in Family Law proceedings. When I first started practice, evidence was occasionally provided in the form of damning letters, emails or text messages. Nowadays, it is much more common and comes in so many more forms: Facebook, Messenger, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Blogs, WhatsApp… and I’m sure many more that I’ve never even heard of! 

Things to avoid on social media if you have separated (or are likely to in the future):

   

Assuming it is private – Just because you aren’t connected with your ex on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Snapchat etc, and/or have high security settings, don’t assume they won’t see what you’ve posted. These things have a way of getting back to your ex (and to the Court). You should assume that anything you post, can and will be used against you in a dispute.

Over sharing – I know you might be angry with your ex, and need a place to vent, but social media is not the place to do it, particularly if you have kids. This includes commenting on other people’s posts, posting in groups, posting inappropriate photos, sending private messages, etc. If you are about to post something that could offend your ex in any way or be used against you: just don’t! Before you hit the button, think to yourself, “What would the Judge think if they were seeing this?” Because chances are, if you end up in Court, that is exactly who will be reading your posts (along with the lawyers, your ex, the child experts etc).

‘Liking’ – Just because you didn’t originally write that post, say that quote or create that meme, doesn’t mean it can’t be used against you. True, you may not have written the words “my ex is a deadbeat ” (for example) but if you just shared someone else’s post or tweet that says exactly that, or hit “like” on someone’s post, tweet or picture that says the same, you may as well have said it yourself.

Drunk dialing – had a glass of wine and think it would be a great time to tell your ex what you really think of them? Trust me, it’s not. Texting and emailing are just as bad (if not worse).

#TMI – Sometimes posting on social media is not only unwise, but it could be a criminal offense. Under section 121 of the Family Law Act, if you publish an account or part of proceedings that identifies parties to a dispute, or a witness, you may be found guilty of an offense, with the possibility of imprisonment. My recommendation – if you are involved in a family law matter that is in Court, do not post ANYTHING about the case or the people involved.

The golden rule: If you don’t have anything nice to say, DON’T: say, write, post, like, comment, tweet or share it! Get a digital divorce.
Have you posted something you shouldn’t have?

Shared from the Farrar Gesini Dunn Blog - originally posted at: http://www.fgd.com.au/blog/digital-divorce/
Contact Farrar Gesini Dunn for an appointment with one of our solicitors to discuss how we can help you. By Kasey Fox Lawyer

Things to avoid on social media

Divorce - Fact V's Fiction

When it comes to Family Law and Divorce, there is a lot of misinformation about what the law says and how it applies to married, de facto and same sex couples couples in Canberra and in Australia.

Below is a brief cheat sheet that I have prepared that covers some of the common misconceptions in this area:

 

If you are going through a separation, you need expert family law advice particular to your circumstances from a family lawyer.

Give me a call in our Canberra office at Farrar Gesini Dunn on 02 6257 6477 or send me an email k.fox@fgd.com.au

 

Are prenups binding in Australia?

 Something I commonly hear when talking to non family lawyers is: “I’d like my clients to protect their assets from divorce, but prenups aren’t binding in Australia…”

Well actually, they are!

Prenups (or as we know them: ‘Binding Financial Agreements’ – BFA’s for short) ARE legally binding (provided they are done properly). BFA’s can be entered into by married couples, de facto couples and same sex couples.

And they are not as uncommon as you might think. With such a high rate of separation and divorce in Australia, many people who have already been through a divorce and property settlement are keen to avoid going through ‘the system’ all over again in their next relationship. BFA’s give them an option to agree with their new partner what will happen if they do separate in the future. This means they have the conversation about what each of them thinks is ‘fair’ at the start of the relationship, rather than at the end, when they are less likely to see eye to eye.

BFA’s are also a popular choice if one person expects to receive a large inheritance in the future, or a large gift from family members, and wants to protect that from a claim by their spouse in the event of separation. BFA’s can also cover things such as: property owned at the start of the relationship, superannuation, trusts, companies, spousal maintenance and even lottery wins.

Already married or in a de facto relationship? It’s not too late! BFA’s can also be entered into after the start of a de facto relationship or marriage.

Are BFA’s complicated and expensive? Yes, they can be, but for a BFA to be an effective protection for you, just like any contract, it needs to be very detailed. And compare that initial expenses against what you might have to pay if you end up in Court. Think of it as an insurance policy – you pay for it as protection ‘just in case’ and then hope you will never need to look at it again.

Prenups / BFA’s do not have to be the big scary romance killer that a lot of people think they are. It is all about having a conversation now (when things are good) about what each of you think would be appropriate if you do separate, and then having that agreement made binding.

Thinking about a BFA? You will each need independent advice from your own family lawyer.

Shared from the Farrar Gesini Dunn Blog - originally posted at: http://www.fgd.com.au/blog/are-prenups-binding-in-australia/ 

Contact Farrar Gesini Dunn for an appointment with one of our solicitors to discuss how we can help you.
By Kasey Fox Lawyer

Kasey Fox is a Family Lawyer at Farrar Gesini Dunn in our Canberra Office

The future of same sex marriage in Australia

The High Court has found that the ACT Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 is of no effect. 

Although some groups who are anti gay marriage are treating this as a win, the better view of the ruling is that it actually helps the case for marriage equality. 

The High Court have ruled that under the Constitution, '"marriage" is a term which includes a marriage between persons of the same sex.' You can see the full judgment here. This now clears the way for the Commonwealth to make legislation allowing for same sex marriage, without requiring a referendum or reconsideration of the Constitution. 

So although it is a very disappointing result for same sex couples in the short term, particularly those who were married and now have had the marriage declared invalid, in the long term, having same sex marriage legislated at a federal level is a far preferable outcome.

Having Commonwealth Legislation rather than state or territory laws means that marriage really will be equal, rather than having one set of laws for heterosexual couples and another for same sex couples. 

As set out in my previous blog post on ACT same sex marriage, if the High Court had declared the legislation valid, although that would have meant that same sex couples could be "married" in the ACT, it would not be the same as a marriage under the Marriage Act and would therefore still be separate. It would have also created difficulties for those couples from a Family Law and Estate Planning point of view. In particular, divorce and property settlement could have become a much more complex and costly exercise for these couples. 

There would have been different definitions of "marriage" and separate laws and systems for divorce. As a family lawyer, I was concerned that the ACT system would have created unnecessary cost for separating couples,  confusion regarding the applicable law and may have resulted in substantial (and costly) litigation. It may have also created problems in the event of the death of either partner and what would happen to that person's estate, will and superannuation. 

The Greens have now proposed the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill into the Senate, which provides for amendment to the commonwealth Marriage Act to remove discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity.

Amending the Marriage Act really is the best way forward for true marriage equality and for equal treatment under the Family Law Act.

If you are a same sex couple and want advice about your current circumstances, contact Farrar Gesini Dunn Family & Collaborative Law for advice.

High Court to deliver judgment on same sex marriage this week

Driving through Canberra on the weekend I saw a happy sight - multiple wedding parties posing for photos and celebrating their marriage. But the question remains, will their marriages be valid?

This coming Thursday, the High Court will deliver judgment on 2 key questions:

- is the ACT Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act and/or the Commonwealth Family Law Act? and 

- if the ACT Legislation is inconsistent, does that cause the ACT Legislation to be of no effect or void?

In total approximately 46 couples have registered to marry under the ACT Legislation. So what affect will the High Court ruling have on them? 

If the High Court finds that the ACT legislation is inconsistent, then the likely effect is that the marriages will be deemed invalid. From a Family Law point of view, the parties would then likely be treated as de facto couples (subject to meeting the criteria under the Family Law Act) if they ever separate. 

If however the High Court declares the legislation valid, although this will mean that same sex couples can be "married" in the ACT, it does create some difficulties for these couples from a Family Law and Estate Planning point of view. In particular, divorce and property settlement could become a much more complex and costly exercise for these couples.

More on this coming soon...

A quick guide to the High Court challenge to ACT same-sex marriage legislation

Today is the first day of the substantial hearing of the Commonwealth challenge to the ACT's Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013.

Essentially, the questions for the Court to determine are:

- is the ACT legislation inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act and/or the Commonwealth Family Law Act? and 

- if the ACT Legislation is inconsistent, does that cause the ACT Legislation to be of no effect or void?

Both the Commonwealth and the ACT have filed written submissions in this matter, as have "Australian Marriage Equality Inc" (see here).

Brief Summary of the arguments:

The case for the Commonwealth is that:

"It has always been within the power of the Commonwealth to exercise that power to legislate to declare a single and uniform rule for Australian society as to what constitutes a valid marriage."

 They argue that the Marriage Act:

"leaves no room for there to be any other laws in Australia which purport  to clothe a union with the legal status of marriage (or a form of marriage)"

On that basis, the Commonwealth seek a declaration that the ACT Marriage Act is of no effect. 


The ACT however submits that 
"It is not accepted that the Marriage Act coupled with the Family Law Act, provides a uniform set of rules for the holding of the status of marriage for the law of Australia."

and that:
"The Commonwealth fails to demonstrate that the ACT law destroys or  detracts from a right conferred by the Commonwealth Law."

For their part, Australian Marriage Equality Inc submits:

"The critical question in the present case is therefore whether the ACT Act is to be construed as an inconsistent attempt to regulate attainment of the status of marriage which is regulated by the Marriage Act. It is not. The ACT Act attributes a character or status to relevant same-sex couples, being a type of status which was never regulated (and is now expressly self-limited) by the Commonwealth in the Marriage Act."

 

For more information visit www.fgd.com.au

To file or not to file...

So often as lawyers, we contemplate whether to take the next step in a matter and file at Court. It might be that we think the other party is hiding documents, or being unreasonable in negotiations or trying to intimidate our client by being overly demanding and aggressive in their correspondence. But is going to Family Court really the answer?

Family law is a difficult area for all involved. Is adding fuel to that fire really going to solve the problems?

Sometimes people go to Court thinking that it will hold all the answers, and that they will be vindicated. But unfortunately the system often leaves people feeling as if they spent a lot of time and money on a process that leaves them feeling unheard. 

Don't get me wrong - I'm a lawyer, and I spend a lot of my time in Court. It is challenging and therefore one of the most interesting parts of my job. But as I do more work in Collaborative Law, I am increasingly finding that it provides a better process for my clients. 

When I was first trained in Collaborative Law a number of years ago, I remember thinking, 'This will be a good process for people who want to stay amicable.' I assumed that the majority of matters would still go to Court or be negotiated in the traditional sense, and a small percentage would choose Collaboration. However, as Collaborative Law has grown, particularly in Canberra, I've found that it isn't only suitable to those easy cases where parties want to stay amicable, in fact, it can be a godsend in matters where the parties don't trust each other at all. 

For example, if my client thinks the other side is hiding something, instead of waiting 12 months for a final hearing to get them in the witness box, I can ask the other party direct questions from our very first meeting. Asking a question in a roundtable conference is much more cost effective than exchanging a war of correspondence between solicitors and more likely to lead to truthful responses. 

Not only do the parties commit to the Collaborative process, but the lawyers do too. This means no more aggressive letters sent at 4.59pm demanding a response the following day and no threats of going to Court. Lawyers on opposing sides working together. Who would have thought?!

As Collaborative Law has grown in Canberra, so have the number of lawyers, and different firms who practice it. I am a member of Canberra Collaborative Family Lawyers who have members from 5 different local firms, and we are adding new members all the time. 

Our Firm Farrar Gesini Dunn also has an office in Melbourne, where Collaborative Law has a large number of lawyers who are committed to the process. 

I don't think we will ever be able to leave the Courts behind completely, they are a necessary part of the system. But maybe if the majority of matters are solved via Collaborative Law, this might take some of the pressure off the Court system, so only the matters that really need a Judge to make the decision go to Court.

Family Law Collaboration: the new solution for hard cases

From my article published in B2B Canberra in June 2012

Believe it or not, not all difficult divorces need to end up in Court. Collaboration is great alternative to resolve family law matters and keep parties out of Court.

In Collaboration each client is represented by his or her lawyer through a series of meetings and all information and advice is given openly in those round table meetings. This process helps to address any power imbalance between the parties, so that one party is not bullied into a settlement. It also allows the parties to structure more creative solutions which go beyond the scope of the Court. 

(visit this page for more info on the idea behind Collaborative Law: http://www.fgd.com.au/lemon.html )

What makes Collaboration unique from other methods of dispute resolution is the contract that is signed by each of the parties and their lawyers, committing not to go to Court. If the matter doesn’t settle, then the lawyers cannot represent the parties at Court. It means that instead of lawyers playing the traditional role of a litigator and being strategic in negotiations, their goal is to settle the dispute by agreement.

So far all of my Collaboration matters have been “hard” cases. Often separating couples have zero trust in the other and will take steps simply to push each other’s buttons. In some cases, in addition to the hostility, there has been a complicated property structure, including companies, self managed superannuation funds and investment properties.

Was reaching a settlement via Collaboration for these matters cheap? No. Was it easy? Definitely not. Did the parties improve their relationship by the end of the process? Sadly not in all cases. Was it better, cheaper, faster and more controlled than Court? Absolutely!

If the parties had chosen the Court process, they would have been faced with: the Court imposing timeframes on them, limited capacity of the Court to deal with urgent issues, the lawyers only able to question the other party directly at the end of the matter (in a hearing), being unable to raise matters considered irrelevant by the Court, the possibility of the Court ordering the sale of assets, possible delay in receiving a judgment and large expenditure on lawyers, barristers and experts. 

Overall, in these cases, the Collaborative process was by no means easy, but it gave the parties the power to control their own settlement rather than rolling the dice with the Court.

For more information about lawyers who practice Collaborative Family Law in Canberra, 

visit: https://www.facebook.com/CanberraCollaborativeFamilyLawyers 

or see Canberra Collaborative Family Lawyers  spread in B2B Canberra

10 Commandments of Family Law: what not to do

Here is my recent article "10 Commandments of Family Law: what not to do" as published in the October issue of B2B Magazine in Canberra. 

I can’t guarantee that your family law matter will be smooth sailing, but if you follow these 10 Commandments, you will be more likely to achieve the outcome you desire.

1. Thou shalt not take advice from friends

As much as you trust your friends, they are not the ones to rely on for family law advice. You need to get advice from a family law expert and get it early. Once you have the correct information, you will be in a better position to make important decisions about your matter.

2. Thou shalt not go straight to Court

This may sound strange coming from a lawyer, but Court is somewhere I want you to avoid if at all possible. Out of all of the options available to separating couples, Court is frequently the most expensive, time consuming and stressful. The best settlements are the ones that parties reach by agreement. Collaborative Law is one of the options available, and best of all, you control the process. Another option is mediation which is a good alternative if you feel comfortable negotiating directly with your ex and have had legal advice.

3. Thou shalt not be rude to your ex

After a break-up it is very tempting to take out your frustrations on your ex. This is particularly the case if you feel wronged by your ex. Try to keep in mind that your goal in your family law matter is to reach agreement as quickly as possible. The quicker the settlement, the less it costs and the sooner you can move on with your life.

4. Thou shalt not bad-mouth your ex to the children

If you and your ex have children together, your priority must be your children’s best interests, and those are not served by telling your children what a bad person their other parent is. To you, your ex may be the devil reincarnate, but to your child, your ex is part of them. Remember: the Court does not look kindly on parents abusing each other in front of their children. It is simple: do not do it.

5. Thou shalt not post online

Online material is becoming more common in family law disputes. If you are separated, and in particular if you are in Court, you should assume that everything you post online (including photos) will be scrutinised. All communications with or about your ex should be short and polite. Remember: if you cannot post anything nice, do not post anything at all.

6. Thou shalt not lie

This applies to your ex, your lawyer and most importantly the Court. If you are thinking about hiding assets from your ex, think again. Your goal should be a settlement that is final so you can move on with your life. Hide assets from your ex, and even years later the whole deal could be undone. Do you really want to be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life?

7. Thou shalt not sweat the small stuff

Trust me – as much as you love that tea cup, it is not worth the thousands of dollars you will pay your lawyer fighting over it or the stress it will cause. Focus on the bigger picture: if you can reach agreement on the big ticket items such as the house and super, it might be worth letting go of some of the smaller items.

8. Thou shalt not be inflexible

If you approach your matter with an all-or-nothing approach, nothing is just what you might end up with! In property matters, fighting to keep the house could mean you end up selling it to pay the bills. This doesn't mean you simply give up and accept a bad settlement. Instead try to be creative with the options you are willing to consider. There might be some middle ground where you get some of what you want and your ex gets some of what they want.

9. Thou shalt not go it alone

Remember that you are not alone in this process. Support of friends and family can be important to help keep you sane after a separation. You may even want to seek counselling to help you through it. If you don’t know where to turn, ask for help.

10. Thou shalt not fail to formalise

If you fail to formalise your settlement, it is not binding. Once you reach an agreement it is vital that you document it in a legally enforceable form that is recognised by the Court. This is the time to see a family law expert to make sure you are protected. It will be money well spent.