Pets can be important to families, and disputes over the family pet in separations appear to be becoming more common. However, in Australia, the Courts have only limited capacity to deal with pets with no legislation for guidance though legal precedent has been established with several cases.
Szabo & Associates News & Updates
The blog How “Final” Are Final Parenting Orders? (November 2017) considered the ruling in Rice & Asplund, concerning final parenting orders, and how “final” such orders may actually be. The Full Court of the Family Court recently had cause to consider the position in a differing set of circumstances where parents with equal shared parental responsibility were in dispute over the schooling of one of their children, in the case of Cameron & Brook.
The recent case of Commissioner of Taxation v Tomaras (2018) raised both constitutional and family law issues. It considered whether, in property settlement proceedings, the Court has the power to order that a (bankrupt) husband be substituted for his (former) wife with regard to the tax debts owed by her so that he became solely liable.
The Supreme Court of NSW recently removed a co-executor to an estate so that the administration of the estate could be finalised. The case of Wise v Barry: The Estate of Robyn Margaret Wise (2018) NSWSC 1726 demonstrates the importance of those making a Will choosing executors with care. Failure to do so increases the risk of disputes leading to delays and extra costs. But who do you choose?
When a parent is considering relocation, an application must be made, and the Court has to weigh and balance the children's best interests with the relocating parent's freedom of movement. This issue recently arose in the case of Kerson & Blake (2018) FamCAFC 215, in which the mother successfully appealed an order which provided that her children were to live with their father in Canberra should she relocate back to the United States of America.