ࡱ> q` ՓbjbjqPqP ;::&z z z z z z z  @@@8.A"B| d(BLB"CCCC"D !Dccccccc$Cfhh~cz HCCHHcz z CCc3L3L3LHXz Cz Cc3LHc3L3La_z z aCB nD؈@WIX<`cc0dR`)iI,)i,aa6)iz Ra4)DGE3LFFH)D)D)DccKX)D)D)DdHHHH -6d 6 z z z z z z   NCSMC National Council of Single Mothers and their 鱨վ Inc. 220 Victoria Square Tarndanyangga Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: 0882262505 Fax: 0882262509  HYPERLINK "mailto:ncsmc@ncsmc.org.au" ncsmc@ncsmc.org.au http://www.ncsmc.org.au 14 July 2005 The Secretariat House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Parliament House Canberra ACT 2006 e-mail:  HYPERLINK "mailto:laca.reps@aph.gov.au" laca.reps@aph.gov.au Dear Secretariat Please find attached the submission of the National Council of Single Mothers and their 鱨վ Inc to the inquiry into the provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2005. We note that an extension of one week from 8 July to 15 July 2005 was granted to submit comment. Our submissions addressed the Terms of Reference of the Committee, as taken from the Every Picture Tells a Story Report, namely to: encourage and assist parents to reach agreement on parenting arrangements after separation outside of the court system where appropriate promote the benefit to the child of both parents having a meaningful role in their lives recognise the need to protect children from family violence and abuse, and ensure that the court process is easier to navigate and less traumatic for the parties and children NCSMC would like the opportunity to support this submission with oral evidence. Please do not hesitate to contact our Executive Officer, Jac Taylor, for any further assistance. Yours faithfully  Dr Elspeth McInnes, NCSMC Convenor 鱨վ NCSMC The National Council of Single Mothers and their 鱨վ Incorporated was formed in 1973 to advocate for the rights and interests of single mothers and their children to the benefit of all sole parent families, including single father families. NCSMC formed to focus on single mothers interests at a time when women who were pregnant outside marriage were expected to give up their children for adoption by couple families and there was no income support for parents raising children alone. Today most single mothers are women who have separated from a partner. Issues of income support, child support, paid work, housing, parenting, child-care, family law, violence and abuse continue as concerns to the present day. NCSMC has member organisations in states and territories around Australia, many of which also provide services and support to families after parental separation. NCSMC aims to: Ensure that all children have a fair start in life; Recognise single mother families as a viable and positive family unit; Promote understanding of single mothers and their children in the community that they may live free from prejudice; To work for improvements in the social economic and legal status of single mothers and their children. Background of the Bill On 24 June 2005 The Attorney General's Department released the Government's response to Every Picture Tells A Story, an exposure draft of proposed legislation and explanatory statement. In addition to the introduction of the FRC's and the more prominent use of Family dispute resolution in Family Law matters; the proposed changes to the Family Law Act could be the most significant changes to the family law system since 1975. The exposure draft has been referred to the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for consideration. Any comments are due to be submitted to the Committee by 8 July 2005. The Committee is due to report by 11 August 2005. This submission makes recommendations on various sections of the Bill taking into account all four criteria of achievement listed below. a) encourage and assist parents to reach agreement on parenting arrangements after separation outside of the court system where appropriate b) promote the benefit to the child of both parents having a meaningful role in their lives c) recognise the need to protect children from family violence and abuse, and d) ensure that the court process is easier to navigate and less traumatic for the parties and children. NCSMC considers that two of the terms of reference are flawed: The b) reference ignores the reality that, when parents are hostile, abusive or violent, meaningful involvement of both parents is ordinarily harmful. The c) reference should also recognise the need to protect the childs family members from family violence and abuse. Schedule 1 Shared Parental Responsibility Content Item 2 of the Schedule amends the objects provision of Part VII of the Act to provide that, subject to safety issues, children have the right to know and be cared for by both parents. Comment NCSMC notes that this provision supports the good intentions of separating parents who are able to co-operate and agree to provide safe care for their child/ren. The provision also supports risks of increased and prolonged entrenched conflict and distress between parties to the detriment of childrens well-being. The primacy of safety has not been sufficiently emphasised. Recommendations: 1. Give expression to the primacy of human rights to safety in the definition of the childs rights. 2. Give expression to childrens right to live free from continuing parental conflict. Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Content Item 9 provides that people applying for a parenting order will be required to first attempt to resolve their dispute using family dispute resolution services. A court cannot hear an application for a parenting order unless the applicant provides a certificate of attendance at family dispute resolution or that failure to do so has been caused by the other partys refusal or non-attendance. Exceptions to attendance are Where the parties have agreed to consent orders. Once substantive court proceedings have commenced. Where there is or has been family violence or abuse, subject to the party satisfying the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that abuse or violence has occurred or may occur. Where there is an existing order relating to an issue in a current contravention application and the person has shown serious disregard of the order. In cases of urgency such as relating to location and recovery of a child including cases of child abduction. Where a party is unable to participate effectively in family dispute resolution due to incapacity (significantly intellectually impaired or substance addicted) or physical remoteness without access to a telephone. Even where a person meets a ground of exemption, the court may still order them to attend family dispute resolution. Where a party does not attend family dispute resolution due to the existence or risk of family violence or child abuse, parties must obtain information about the issue/s in dispute from a family counsellor or family dispute resolution practitioner before the application is considered by the court. All applications made after July 1 2008 will need to be fully compliant with these provisions. Comment NCSMC notes that there is no detail about how the Court will determine what are reasonable grounds to believe that abuse or violence has occurred or may occur. Circumstances of violence or abuse often occur in private, are under-reported and often minimised or denied by parties. The possible increased requirements to document or prove violence or abuse creates risks that women will be discouraged from disclosing violence and/or abuse and that matters will be inappropriately forced into FDR processes. Services that provide FDR will also play a role in screening for violence in families. There is evidence from research and past experience that screening is not successful/effective. Keys Young (1996) research into mediation services found that almost two-thirds of cases attending mediation involved family violence and less than one third were identified as such. Even with highly sensitive screening tools and skilled staff, not all cases of domestic violence will be identified. A further problem is that the courts current processes routinely expose adults and children to continuing risks of violence and abuse. The Family Law Council has highlighted this in its reports on Family Law and Child Protection (2002) and Letter of Advice on Family Violence (2004). There is an annual corpse count of mothers and children killed by men who used the opportunity of child contact to kill their child/ren and sometimes mothers and other family members. It is a grave and glaringly apparent abuse of power to ignore expert advice that mothers and children are being failed by existing safety provisions. The failure to act to make the Family Law system responsive to the safety needs of children and adults underpins the inadequate uselessness of referring matters involving abuse and violence to the court. The courts practices have a history of manifest and abject failure in sustaining the safety of targets of post-separation violence. People in the court system are being killed by ex-partners now. What is being done to make it safer? Nothing. There is no capacity of individuals to protect themselves from death or injury arising from federal court orders requiring them to see or live with a person who was established on reasonable grounds as violent or abusive. Therefore, there should be a statutory compensation scheme established for surviving dependents of murdered parents or children, and living adults and children who suffer serious physical or psychological harm from another party as a result of court orders. Recommendation 3 A sworn statement by a party that violence or abuse has occurred should be sufficient to establish reasonable grounds to believe that violence or abuse has occurred or may occur. A further range of indicators of violence or abuse in families should be provided to the court to support reasonable grounds. These should include but not be limited to: Allegations of abuse or violence by a party 鱨վs disclosures of abuse or violence Any police records, reports, prosecutions, convictions pertaining to violent conduct of a party Any mandated child protection notifications against a party Any child protection records pertaining to a child of a party Any audio or video recording of abusive or violent conduct by a party including threats to harm or kill The existence of a previous or current Restraining Order against a party Any witness statements attesting to violent or abusive conduct by a party Recommendation 4 An additional presumption of human rights to safety should be expressed, providing that the court specifically has responsibility to ensure that its orders do not expose parties or children to actual or threatened harm. Recommendation 5 The legislation should further provide for a statutory compensation system for parties and children who are killed or suffer serious physical or psychological harm from parties who the court orders them to have contact with or reside with. Recommendation 6 As a matter of urgency the family law system capacity to identify and respond effectively to violence and abuse to support adult and child safety should be addressed. The recommendations of the Family Law Council in its Family Law and Child Protection Report (2002) and Letter of Advice: Violence - Division 11 of the Family Law Act 1975 (2004) should be implemented forthwith. Presumption of Joint Parental Responsibility Content Item 11 provides a new presumption for the court to consider in making an order, that parents have joint parental responsibility for the child except where there are reasonable grounds for the court to believe that a parent of a child or a person who lives with a parent of a child, has engaged in child abuse or family violence. The presumption will also be rebutted where the court considers that joint parental responsibility would not be in the best interests of children. Comment There should be no presumption of joint parental responsibility, and consideration of parental responsibility should rest on each childs unique circumstances. NCSMC is pleased to note the provision recognising that joint parental responsibility will not always be in a childs best interests. NCSMC is concerned that some such circumstances should be indicated and include provisions which limit parents capacity to intermittently exercise parental responsibility. For example, if the parent goes overseas for a number of years and has no contact with the child, it is not reasonable to support a capacity to re-appear and exercise significant control over the childs life. A requirement to consult/communicate provides abusive ex-partners with ongoing opportunities to intimidate, harass and abuse their former partner. This requirement may endanger children. Although there is the presumption against joint parental responsibility in cases involving violence/abuse, NCSMC is concerned about the burden of proof. There is no provision as to how to ensure that such evidence is presented to court, or where it fits into the process of the new family law system. Further this is placing the burden of proof onto the victim. Despite research available that demonstrates how the system routinely fails to protect women and children, there is no consideration being given to the Governments responsibility to protect its citizens from violence/abuse. Recommendation 7 Determination of parental responsibility should be determined on the unique circumstances of each child. Indicators of the circumstances in which joint parental responsibility would not be in a childs best interests should be developed with reference to research evidence and include, in addition to circumstances of violence or abuse, circumstances of ; for example Substance abuse Significant intellectual impairment arising from disability or illness Continuing high conflict Absence for a significant period from exercising parental responsibility Substantial Time with each Parent Content Item 14 provides that Advisers (as defined in the Bill and including legal practitioners, FDR practitioners, family counsellors) assisting in the making of a parenting plan are required to inform their client/s of the possibility of the child spending substantial time with each of the parties if it is practicable and in the best interests of the child. Item 23 provides that the court must consider making an order that a child spend substantial time with each parent, if a parenting order provides parents with joint parental responsibility for the child. The court must consider whether both parents wish to spend substantial time with the child and whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to spend this time with each parent and whether it is in the childs best interests. Comment There should be no assumption that children should spend substantial time with each parent and the circumstances of each child should be taken into account in determining her/his best interests. There is no apparent consideration of the childs right to any continuity of living circumstances. NCSMC is concerned that the focus in these items is on parcelling the child out to parties and further does not include opportunities for the child to express her/his views on the way her/his time is spent and with whom in line with the provisions of the United National Convention on the Rights of the Child. Neither is there guidance as to practicability. In relation to situations of violence/abuse, research clearly demonstrates that perpetrators often seek greater access to their children, as a mechanism to maintain control (Kaye, et al., 2003; Judicial Council of California, 2002; Jaffe, et al., 2003; Rhoades, 2002). Research also documents that the right to contact principle has taken precedence over childrens rights to safety (Rhoades, 2002; Kaye, et al., 2003). Recommendation 8 There should be no assumption that children should spend substantial time with each parent and the circumstances of each child should be taken into account in determining her/his best interests. Recommendation 9 All children whose parents have a dispute about parenting matters have opportunity to express their views and have those views taken into account by Advisers or the Court in developing a parenting plan or making an order. Where children are pre-verbal, child development research evidence should be used to inform outcomes supporting childrens healthy emotional and social development. Recommendation 10 鱨վ should have a right to reasonable continuity of living circumstances. That a range of indicators of practicability need to be developed and considered in terms of the childs experience of the plan/order. 鱨վ should be protected from plans/orders which: Impose a regime of long travel times on the child Disregard the need for secure attachment for healthy infant development Prevent/inhibit breastfeeding the child Impose medical risks to the child (such as when the child has a serious illness or disability which requires attentive and continuing expert care) Impose unreasonably high financial burdens on either parent Prevent/inhibit children from participating in regular sport/recreation activities such as weekend sport Interrupt/change childrens place of education Prevent/inhibit children from spending time and participating in family events with other family members Require children to attend prison to spend time with a parent Expose children to continuing emotional distress Parenting Plans Content Parenting plans/orders provide for the time a child spends with particular people, the allocation of parental responsibility, other communications a child is to be made to have, child maintenance and the form of consultation about parental decisions and processes for changing plans by agreement. A parenting plan will override a prior court order to the extent of any inconsistency. Parenting plans will also be able to deal with other relatives of the child including step-parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles and aunts, nephews, nieces and cousins Comment NCSMC endorses supporting parents to agree to processes for consultation and for changing plans where this is possible. It is again concerning that there is no systematic attempt to include children in the determination of their lives through either parenting plans or orders. There is also a heightened risk of instability in childrens lives if they are subjected to a constantly changing sequence of plans/orders about their lives. The approach of continual change of plans may in practice inhibit childrens capacity to pursue educational and vocational opportunities which rely on continuous participation. There is also a need for children to be able to actively indicate if they experience significant distress arising from the plan/order. Where the terms of the plan/order provide for specific purposes of outcome for the child, there should be a review mechanism to check if the anticipated outcomes have actually been met and if there are any undesirable unintended consequences arising from the plan/order. For example if a child is ordered to spend time with a parent who has sexually assaulted her in order for her to lose her fear of her rapist, the practice outcomes of the order should be reviewed to examine its impact on the child. Currently, when orders are made that children spend time with parents who have been violent or abusive to them or other family members, there is no way to assess whether the order is helping or harming the child. See Recommendation 9 Recommendation 11 There should be provision for Courts, Advisers and parents to consider whether the childs life will be subject to significant fragmentation and disruption by either the terms of the plan/order or changes which are being sought to the plan/order. 鱨վ should have a right to reasonable continuity of living circumstances. Recommendation 12 There should be provision for the review of a plan/order with respect to how it is working for the child. Where children experience significant emotional, behavioural or physical distress arising from the terms of the plan/order, there should be opportunity for systematic review and changes which assist the childs well-being. Best Interests of the Child Content Items 26 to 36 provide for determining the best interests of the child and include a first tier of two factors the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of her/his parents and the need to protect the child from violence or psychological harm. The second tier lists factors already existing in subsection 68F(2) of the Act. There is a new factor to consider the willingness and ability of each of the childs parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship with the other parent. There is also an amendment providing explicit direction that uncontested or interim family violence orders are not an independent factor in considering a childs best interests. Comment Despite the statement about the need to protect the child, the amendments collectively undermine the existing inadequate protections for children and adults from violence and harm in the family law system. The need to protect the child from violence is represented as subordinate to the childs benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents. These should be reversed. When a child is murdered by a parent there is no opportunity for a meaningful relationship with anyone. Safety should come first. Further the friendly parent provision has been a manifest boon, where it has been implemented, to parents who use violence or abuse. Parents who use violence and abuse welcome the opportunity to threaten and harm their targets whilst protective parents seeking to avoid threats and injury have every reason to avoid the violent parent. As noted earlier, the family law system has been identified, most recently by the Governments own statutory advisory body, as failing miserably in its protections against violence. Apart from the advice of the governments own legal experts, there is also the evidence of an annual corpse count of mothers and children attesting to the fact that the safety protections are abysmally inadequate. It is not clear why the emphasis in the provisions is on downplaying the evidentiary significance of restraining orders in matters of violence and abuse when mothers and children with restraining orders are still being attacked and killed. The government would appear to be ignoring the recent Australian research findings of Access Economics, The World Health Organisation and VicHealth identifying that domestic violence is an $8billion problem in the Australian economy, that most gendered violence occurs in intimate partnerships and that mens violence against women is the single biggest contributor to the public health burden for women aged 15-44. The government would appear to prefer the unsubstantiated anecdotes of men that women falsely claim violence to gain advantage to national quantitative research. The flaw in the mens argument is that reporting violence and abuse does not do anything to protect mothers and children in the family law system. In fact persistent attempts to protect themselves and their children is likely to result in loss of residence to the abuser and supervised contact. The governments approach to this issue also seems to endorse the mens movement view that women routinely invent claims of violence and even the bodies of battered mothers and children do not seem to affect the apparent belief that women are liars. Recommendation 13 The safety of the child and the childs family should be the first threshold condition of meeting a childs best interests. All considerations of a childs best interests by Advisers and the courts should work systematically through the indicators in this section of the Act. Recommendation 14 The friendly parent provision should be scrapped or at least enable protective parents to seek to protect the child without such actions being used as an argument to remove the child from their care. Recommendation 15 Interim and ex-parte family violence orders must be considered in determining a childs best interests. Recommendation 16 The New Zealand Guardianship Act (1968) be considered for adoption, specifically s16B which requires a court to determine as soon as practicable whether an allegation of violence is proven. Where it is the court must not order residence or unsupervised contact to the violent parent unless satisfied that the child will be safe. An evaluation has demonstrated that this legislation has improved the safety of children (Chetwin, et al., 1999). Recommendation 17 Where there is found to be reasonable grounds of past or current context of violence and abuse the decision-making process should focus on preventing, reducing and managing risks of harm. Courts should be required to make risk assessment the central feature of parenting disputes where domestic violence and/or child abuse has been present. They include the nature and seriousness of the violence; how recently and frequently such violence has occurred; the likelihood of further violence; the physical or emotional harm caused to the child by the violence; the opinions of the other party and the child as to safety; and any steps the violent party has taken to prevent further violence occurring. The occurrence of such violence should be the central issue of the courts initial inquiry and the assessment of the risk of further violence occurring should determine the shape of the parenting order. Changes to the Family law Act Proposed changes to S60B: Objects of Part and principles underlying it (1) The objects of this Part are: (a) to ensure that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and (b) to ensure that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and (c) to ensure that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child. Comment The Objects and Principles should include ensuring the right to safety of the child and her/his family. Recommendation 18 The Objects and Principles should include ensuring the right to safety of the child and her/his family. Schedule 2 Compliance Regime Content The Bill proposes amendments reflecting the changes to the object in s60B - that children have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents to the greatest extent possible. Make up contact can be ordered and the Bill provides directions about when the court must consider making a costs order and/or ordering compensation for costs incurred in relation to contact that did not take place because of the breach. The court is also given broader powers to impose bonds. The Bill clarifies that there is a low standard of proof for compliance matters at the 1st and 2nd stages on the basis that the sanctions are not criminal. If the matter is a stage 3 contravention matter - there is a presumption that the court will order costs against the party in breach unless it is not in the childs best interests. Comment The proposed changes ignore the research evidence that withholding of contact is linked to protective concerns for the child (Rhoades, 2002). Increased punitive measures further increase the risk of taking protective action on the childs behalf. If a contact parent drove to the contact handover intoxicated with alcohol, the resident parent would have to consider her/his capacity to successfully withstand contravention proceedings or knowingly let the child enter a car with a drunk driver. If the driver were to subsequently have a major crash the mother could be held to be criminally negligent in allowing her child to enter a car with a drunk driver. If she did not allow the child to go, the driver could pursue a contravention application against her. The mother would not have access to any legally recognisable capacity to obtain proof of the drivers intoxication. This example illustrates the difficulty protective parents face in supporting their childs safety, particularly when the Bill explicitly notes that a lower standard of proof is acceptable. Research into Family Court cases identifies that filing contravention applications is a method of legal harassment of an ex-partner. Persons filing such applications should have to establish that contact was not provided and face penalties for frivolous or non-meritorious applications. The capacity to withhold contact to protect the child needs to be available to parents. Recommendation 19 In recognition of the popularity of contravention applications being used by ex-partners to legally harass resident parents, all applications for contravention proceedings should place the burden of proof on the party bringing the application. Further penalties should be available to the court when applications are found to be without substance and the party bringing the application is exploiting the family law system as a form of harassment and control. Recommendation 20 The capacity of parents to withhold contact to protect their children from exposure to violence or abuse needs to be supported. Schedule 3 The Conduct of Child Related Matters Content The Bill provides for changes in the way child related matters are conducted. These changes are based on the 鱨վ Cases program that has been piloted by the Family Court in NSW. They allow for the Court to act in a more inquisitorial manner. Principles are set out in the Bill to guide the Court in a less adversarial approach. These Principles include:- Ensure the proceedings are focused on the child The Judicial Officer must control the conduct of the hearing Ensure that the proceedings are conducted in such a way to encourage the parents to focus on the children and on their ongoing relationship as parents The proceedings should be conducted as expeditiously and with as little formality as possible The proposed new s60KE provides a number of general duties that the Court must carry out to give effect to the principles. This includes considering whether the likely benefits in taking a step in the proceedings justify the costs of taking it. Significant changes are proposed in relation to the rules of evidence. Even where the rules of evidence in relation to hearsay evidence are applied a representation made by a child about a matter that is relevant to the welfare of that or another child is admissible. Comment The focus on the child is a welcome change in direction however the capacity for the court to inform itself of the childs circumstances and risks to the childs safety has still to be improved. The recommendations of the Family Law Councils report on Child Protection and Letter of Advice on Family Violence are critical to the courts capacity to know what has happened to the child. Recommendation 21 Implement as a matter of urgency the Family Law Council recommendations on child protection and family violence and elevate the right to safety as the first condition of meeting a childs best interests. Additional Comments There is significant research to show that domestic violence and child abuse are very real issues for many women and children, and that separation from an abusive partner can be the most dangerous time for women and children. The proposed reforms not only do not address how the family law system will be improved to protect women and children from ongoing violence and abuse following separation, but in fact create further barriers to women and children achieving safety. The proposed changes take a punitive approach towards women in their attempts to escape domestic violence and child abuse. The Australian Institute of Family Studies research (Walcott & Hughes, 1999) shows that communication breakdown, followed by violence and abuse issues are the main reasons for divorce. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) Womens Safety Survey indicate that single, previously partnered women experienced the highest incidence of violence, with 42% reporting experiencing violence, mainly from former partners. The Family Law Pathways report identified that 2 out of 3 separations involving children feature issues of violence and abuse. One in four children experience violence and abuse through witnessing violence against their mother or step-mother by their father or step-father (Indemaur, 2001). Brown et al (2001) in their study of family court cases found that 50% of cases at the mid-point of proceedings in the family court contained multiple and serious forms of family violence. Women and children are at greatest risk of increased violence, including murder immediately following separation (Jaffe et al, 2003). At the time of separation children are at risk of violence, abduction, sexual assault and coercion (Kaye et al, 2003). There is also ample evidence to show that the current family law system is failing to provide protection for women and children from abuse and violence. REFERENCES Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) Womens Safety Australia, Catalogue Number 4128.0, Canberra. AGPS Brown, T., Sheehan, R., Frederico, M. and Hewitt, L. (2001) Resolving Family Violence to 鱨վ: The Evaluation of Project Magellan, a pilot project for managing Family Court residence and contact disputes when allegation of child abuse have been made. Monash University Clayton, the Family Violence and Family Court Research program. Chetwin, A., Knaggs, T. and P Te Wariere Ahiahi Young (1999) The Domestic Violence Legislation and Child Access in New Zealand, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Family Law Council (2002) Family Law and Child Protection, available at:  HYPERLINK "http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Reports_to_the_AG_All_Reports_Family_Law_and_Child_Protection_-_Final_Report" http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Reports_to_the_AG_All_Reports_Family_Law_and_Child_Protection_-_Final_Report Family Law Council (2004) Letter of Advice: Violence Division 11 of the Family Law Act 1975, available at:  HYPERLINK "http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Violence_-_Division_11_of_the_Family_Law_Act_1975" http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Violence_-_Division_11_of_the_Family_Law_Act_1975 Family Law Pathways Advisory Group (2001) Out of the Maze, Canberra, Attorney Generals Department. Indermaur, D. (2001) Young Australians and Domestic Violence. Trends and Issues Paper No. 195, Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology. Jaffe, P., Lemon, N., and Poisson, S. (2003) Child Custody and Domestic Violence. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Ca. Kaye, M., Stubbs, J. and Tolmie, J (2003) Negotiating Child Residence and Contact Arrangements against a Background of Domestic Violence, Families Law and Social Policy Research Unit, Griffith University, Queensland. Keys Young (1996) Research/Evaluation of Family Mediation Practice and the Issue of Violence, Final Report, Attorney Generals Department, Canberra Rhoades, H. (2002) The No Contact Mother: reconstructions of Motherhood in the era of the New Father, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 16 (1): 71-94. Wolcott, I and Hughes, J. (1999) Towards Understanding the Reasons for Divorce, Working Paper 20, Melbourne, Australian Institute of Family Studies.     PAGE  PAGE 12 BEVcd  óÖÀo`\QIQ:hhB*CJaJphh&CJaJhhCJaJhCJhh-CJ$OJQJaJ$ hJy/h-0JCJOJQJaJ+jhJy/h-CJOJQJUaJjh-CJOJQJUaJh-6CJOJQJaJhSTh-6CJOJQJaJh-CJOJQJaJhh-CJOJQJaJhWh-CJ$OJQJaJ$hWh-CJOJQJaJh-B A e { gdgdCJgd-)$$d%d&d'dNOPQa$gd-gd-ԓ E J L L h z { |   Ĺ~vvmvbShCJhCJCJaJmH sH h:Ch:CCJaJh:C6CJaJh:CCJaJhCJaJhCJCJaJhhCJaJ hCJhCJh56CJaJhh56CJaJhhCJCJaJhB*CJaJphhh0JCJaJhhB*CJaJph&jhhB*CJUaJph{ |  `   } & F[$\$^`gdM!gdM! $dda$gdM!gdM!dhgdM! [$\$gd:Cgd- & FgdCJgd ` }QƬؕ~yqj_N>2hCJaJmH sH h2h25CJaJmH sH hM!hM!CJOJQJ^JaJhM!hM!CJaJ hM!hM!hM!hM!5 hM!5,h:Ch:C5B*CJOJQJ^JaJph,h:Ch5B*CJOJQJ^JaJph2jhhB*CJOJQJU^JaJph#hB*CJOJQJ^JaJph#h:CB*CJOJQJ^JaJph)hhB*CJOJQJ^JaJph{,e  LMUWgd"gd!5gd!5 & F[$\$^`gdM!Qn&.;o+,ٻ|jXI:Ih26CJ\aJmH sH h26CJ\aJmH sH "h2h26CJ\aJmH sH #h"B*CJOJQJ^JaJph)hh"B*CJOJQJ^JaJphh"CJ\aJmH sH h"h"CJ\aJmH sH h2CJ\aJmH sH hM!5CJ\aJmH sH h!55CJ\aJmH sH h!5CJaJmH sH hCJaJmH sH h6CJ]aJmH sH    <= LTU[ðzzk\M;"hAGh"5CJ\aJmH sH hn5CJ\aJmH sH h25CJ\aJmH sH h"5CJ\aJmH sH hn56CJ\aJmH sH %hnh556CJ\aJmH sH %hnhn56CJ\aJmH sH %hnh256CJ\aJmH sH h:C56CJ\aJmH sH hn6CJ\aJmH sH h26CJ\aJmH sH h:C6CJ\aJmH sH [7VWXôr]r]J:h56CJ\aJmH sH %hnh56CJ\aJmH sH (hh@(56>*CJ\aJmH sH (hhAG56>*CJ\aJmH sH h26CJ\aJmH sH hn6CJ\aJmH sH h@(6CJ\aJmH sH hAG6CJ\aJmH sH "h2h25CJ\aJmH sH hAGCJ\aJmH sH h"CJ\aJmH sH h"h"CJ\aJmH sH WX fgh<m`e =!!!" & FgdYgd2gdAG hh^h`gdgd!5   >CRdefghƶƓƀpcTE6ch25CJ\aJmH sH hAG5CJ\aJmH sH hyQ5CJ\aJmH sH h"CJ\aJmH sH hx56CJ\aJmH sH %hnhx56CJ\aJmH sH h56CJ\aJmH sH %hnh56CJ\aJmH sH hAG56CJ\aJmH sH %hnh256CJ\aJmH sH %hnh@(56CJ\aJmH sH %hnhAG56CJ\aJmH sH klm`D d #?#@#H#ؾرءqdTHh2h25CJaJh2hyQCJ\aJmH sH h2CJ\aJmH sH h2h2CJ\aJmH sH h2hAGCJ\aJmH sH hghgCJ\aJmH sH h"hgCJ\aJmH sH hRoCJ\aJmH sH h CJ\aJmH sH hYCJ\aJmH sH hgCJ\aJmH sH h"CJ\aJmH sH hAGCJ\aJmH sH "">#?#@#H##d$e$I%J%.'/' ) )d+e+G-H-Y-..../x// & Fgd8<9gd9gdngd2gd!5H#Z#e#k#######=$I$J$c$e$h$$$$$$%%(%H%J%%%%%&-'.''( (޽ym^hh'CJaJmH sH h CJaJmH sH h'6CJaJmH sH h!56CJaJmH sH h6CJaJmH sH hn6CJaJmH sH hnh!56CJaJmH sH hn6CJ\aJmH sH h 6CJaJhx6CJaJhn6CJaJhnh!56CJaJhnh26CJaJ# ( ((!("(+(,(D(K((((()) ))0))c+d+e+f+1,E,U,,,,,,F-G-H-Y-[-Ȼȡȡաta%hx~hn56CJ\aJmH sH %hhn56>*CJaJmH sH hn6CJaJmH sH hJy6CJaJmH sH h %6CJaJmH sH h"6CJaJmH sH h'6CJaJmH sH hWR6CJaJmH sH h6CJaJmH sH hh'CJaJmH sH hhCJaJmH sH #[-.P.f.j.r.s.z../n00000000011111˽˲ˤ˖˖˖}n_TITIh %56CJaJh'56CJaJhh956>*䴳'56>*䴳x56C956Cx8<956CJaJhx~hx~56CJaJhx~56CJaJhx~h56CJaJhx~h956CJaJ%hx~hn56CJ\aJmH sH %hx~hx~56CJ\aJmH sH //[00001111222n4o4p4444666394999!;";gd9h^hgd & Fgd8<911d2m22222222n3s333333444444@4E4F4L4m4n4o4p44Ϧϛڃڃzzqf_Uhx~hx~5CJ hyQ5CJh"56CJaJh 5CJaJhY5CJaJhYhY5CJaJhYhWR5CJaJhWR56CJaJh=h56CJaJhh=h56>*CJaJhh256>*CJaJh256CJaJhY56CJaJh %56CJaJhh %56>*CJaJ 4444444566666-7.7/7T7\7`77888992949";B<G<V<и௣vmdUhyQh"56>*CJaJhyQ6CJaJh6CJaJhv6CJaJh?j6CJaJhV6CJaJh"6CJaJh@6CJaJh"h"6CJaJhD6CJaJh"CJaJh o+CJaJhB CJaJhx~CJaJh=hCJaJh=hh=h5CJaJh=h5CJaJhx~h95CJ";A<B<C<D<E<F<G<X<==>8>>>>>>>@@AAAbDcD FgdY>)gdY>) & FgdVgd!5gd9V<W<X<<<1=8======^>>>>>>>>>?ññҐqfXSIA9hY>)h!56hY>)hY>)6h=hh=h56 h=h6hY>)hY>)56CJaJh=h56CJaJhnh"6CJaJmH sH h=h56CJaJmH sH "hY>)h!556CJaJmH sH h 56CJaJmH sH "hY>)h"56CJaJmH sH h?j56CJaJmH sH hD56CJaJmH sH hyQh"56>*CJaJhyQh=h56>*CJaJ??@@@@@IAJAAAAABBBB CKCRCVC^CCND_DaDbDDD־ʮtdWJh6CJaJmH sH h]6CJaJmH sH hF.h6CJaJmH sH hF.hF.6CJaJmH sH hF.h]6CJaJmH sH h6CJaJmH sH h?j6CJaJmH sH h=hh=h5CJaJmH sH hY>)CJaJmH sH h]CJaJmH sH hY>)hY>)CJaJmH sH hY>)mH sH h!56hY>)h!56 h]6DqEyE F FFFFFFFFvHwHyH|HHHI2IIJƳơrcrTcrErch56CJaJmH sH hyQ56CJaJmH sH h?j56CJaJmH sH hF.56CJaJmH sH %hhKP56>*CJaJmH sH hKP6CJaJmH sH "hKPhKP56CJaJmH sH %hh=h56>*CJaJmH sH %hhF.56>*CJaJmH sH hF.CJaJmH sH h6CJaJmH sH h6CJaJmH sH  F FFFFFxHyHzH{H|HHIIJAJJKyKKLOLLLLLLgd!5gd!5 & Fgd<7WgdKPgdY>)JJJJKKyKLLLLLLLMMMMN N_NlNN~rfrfZNBNhhCJaJmH sH h kCJaJmH sH h!5CJaJmH sH hj'YCJaJmH sH h=hCJaJmH sH h=hh=h5CJaJmH sH hyQhyQmH sH h!55>*CJaJhLTh!55>*CJaJh2h!5CJaJmH sH "hF.hKP56CJaJmH sH h=h56CJaJmH sH hF.56CJaJmH sH h<7W56CJaJmH sH LLLMM NNNNOO*CJaJmH sH h v#56CJaJmH sH hyQ56CJaJmH sH h'AP56CJaJmH sH h56CJaJmH sH %hyQhKP56>*CJaJmH sH %hyQh'AP56>*CJaJmH sH "h'APh'AP56CJaJmH sH h'APhyQ6CJaJmH sH "dWWWWWXXfYYYYUZ]ZZZZB\\\]\\\\K]]]]]x__``*`1````¶~q~d~dqWdWdqdWdWqdqWqhyQ6CJaJmH sH h~I6CJaJmH sH hUs6CJaJmH sH h+w6CJaJmH sH h 6CJaJmH sH "h+wh+w56CJaJmH sH hyQCJaJmH sH h+wCJaJmH sH h+wh+w5CJaJmH sH h hyQ5CJaJmH sH h!55CJaJmH sH h h+w5CJaJmH sH "WTZUZ]Z]\^\]]ddddeeefffgg/ghhilll  gd Rgd kgd!5``aabbzccddddddddddeeeeeffؾwwhUhFhh 56CJaJmH sH %hyQhyQ56>*CJaJmH sH h k56CJaJmH sH "h; h k56CJaJmH sH hKP56CJaJmH sH %hyQh k56>*CJaJmH sH %hyQhKP56>*CJaJmH sH h R6CJaJmH sH h~I6CJaJmH sH h k6CJaJmH sH hUs6CJaJmH sH hyQ6CJaJmH sH ffffg.g/g3g?gOgPgWggghhhhiiii jj4jݬݜݍݬzgXM?M?h kh k56CJaJh k56CJaJh k56CJaJmH sH %hyQh k56>*CJaJmH sH %hyQhyQ56>*CJaJmH sH h56CJaJmH sH h Rh R5CJaJmH sH "h Rh R56CJaJmH sH h R56>*CJaJmH sH h 56CJaJmH sH h R56CJaJmH sH %h Rh R56>*CJaJmH sH 4j8jGjkkYl`l{llllllllllllllnnnnnó}ogb]UFhKP56CJaJmH sH h h] h R] h!5]h h!5]h h!56CJ]aJh h!5CJaJh hxV0JCJaJhxV0JCJaJh h!50JCJaJ h h!5h kh+w6CJaJmH sH h khyQ56CJaJh v#56CJaJh kh k56CJaJh k56CJaJhyQ56CJaJlllmm"nnnnnRoSoeoooooooo%s&s.sxxxzgd gd'APgd!5gd!5gd!5gd!5nQoRoSobodoeoooooo ppp p#ppppp|m]QmB6BmQmQh:@ CJaJmH sH h2h:@ CJaJmH sH h CJaJmH sH hEURhEUR5CJaJmH sH h2h!5CJaJmH sH h 5CJ\aJmH sH hnh'AP6CJaJmH sH "h h 56CJaJmH sH %h:@ h:@ 56>*CJaJmH sH %h:@ h'AP56>*CJaJmH sH hKP56CJaJmH sH hKPhKP6CJaJmH sH hKP6CJaJmH sH pppq qqqq+r-r3r5rpr%s&s.sss$t_ttuvawx埏rerUrHhEUR6CJaJmH sH hEURh:@ 6CJaJmH sH h 6CJaJmH sH hEURhp@6CJaJmH sH h:@ 6CJaJmH sH hEURh 6CJaJmH sH "hEURh 56CJaJmH sH hEURhEURCJH*aJmH sH hEURCJaJmH sH hp@CJaJmH sH h:@ CJaJmH sH h CJaJmH sH h2h!5CJaJmH sH xxxxx^y_yGzzzzzzzO{\{a{k{l{q{ͺxiViG>2>2hh5CJaJh5CJaJh5CJ\aJmH sH %h:@ h56>*CJaJmH sH h56CJaJmH sH hp@56CJaJmH sH "hh56CJaJmH sH h 56CJaJmH sH "hhEUR56CJaJmH sH %h:@ hEUR56>*CJaJmH sH h:@ 56>*CJaJmH sH "hEURhEUR56CJaJmH sH hEURh!56CJaJmH sH zzzK{L{M{N{O{{{{||"}_}}T~U~JKWX`ǂ & F0^`0gd!5gdgd!5q{r{y{z{{{{{{WX`aɹzjZjG1z+hRoh56>*CJ\]aJmH sH %hRo56>*CJ\]aJmH sH h6CJ\]aJmH sH h6CJ\]aJmH sH "h56CJ\]aJmH sH "h'g56CJ\]aJmH sH h2h!5CJaJmH sH hCJaJmH sH hh5CJaJmH sH h2hCJaJmH sH "hh5CJ\aJmH sH hh5CJaJh5CJaJaiłǂȂɂނ[\_~MNOYZӌ̺yme]T]H]jh-<CJUaJh-<6CJaJh-<CJaJhRoCJaJhh5CJaJhCJaJhCJaJh CJaJhhRoCJaJhhRo5CJaJ"hRo56CJ\]aJmH sH "h156CJ\]aJmH sH h6CJ\]aJmH sH "h56CJ\]aJmH sH "h 56CJ\]aJmH sH ǂȂɂ݂ނ45ֆUMNOZ[ĊŊ & FgdRogdRo8}“ÓœƓ͓̓{{{{qkqkgqkqh h0Jjh0JUh8-=jh8-=U(hhRo56CJ\]aJmH sH hhRoCJaJ#jBh0)h-<CJUaJh-<6CJaJh0)h-<0JCJaJjh-<CJUaJ#j.@h0)h-<CJUaJh-<CJaJh-<h-<CJaJ%}~ёґfgÓēœѓh]hgd x &`#$gd^/gdRo͓ϓГѓӓԓՓ(hhRo56CJ\]aJmH sH h8-=h h0Jjh0JUh 0JmHnHuѓғӓԓՓh]hgd x90&P P:p:C. A!"#n$n% DyK ncsmc@ncsmc.org.auyK 4mailto:ncsmc@ncsmc.org.au_?DdL  C (AelspethR>KVcQ񸓡`>K F>KVcQ񸓡`JFIF,,C    $.' ",#(7),01444'9=82<.342 *! }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz?_nZNߛu5 MjnЭFm;rQGC}r7o~:iw|N]G=GjrZ6P:n梊?s}jӚG-5dNͺni-.ߚzӿUNoFUv墏nk|-9h7kv5 Qۚ_GWQENSݦӷPMfn)755v-IE:Ӷ~5/mV|T3mC74/ݣoGަSMfZiFw_{[Qu:m4m*?m:P}:35٧QinVfmUm5;wMfoNZm;梆jV59m.?457NZ>U.u/M|ݢhVoNhQB;Q{riSi̴fwmBѷr(GݢjsGݣu7QMvFѹjOiNV k/NB}o6ӗu|Zh]6>f[S6SWڴߖM۩EwݢE5S~Zr3G5QN NmMmBFէ.o h>ono~omv|п+Q5 N~FwS|Njn֣6 nv}?١ڴ+ ݶ۾m/nfw BZ>Z>jZ>Zu7u;u>ޢ7nu ߗQuoG|QN|ݺhUIMnP+m_ihNݹhjh_}/_wSjnZ?47~ZwPPޢMehVi5C}jӨF_ᦳS]ۨjm7Ы;Z?4|Nݶ4MݺNjknwݣ*rѻm hvviQSu5zwnjtoFߖQFmhjhE;u -hjoFhhMfNow55[wӨ_Ѻ})No%6WQEէ|Mv˶WwPzjjiۨf*oޣ Zu;w4F6y֧-75w7ޢVN4nu-|4-z_T{jwͺftMnGzFC7ӕv/TnZ7v&FnfNhٶ߼N4nӶ>;wv2-{B)S~ BЫNjSZjwZo7 ম?ݧ6m;m5SwG|v)ZhVuS[m:E NYhڎTiSi- ӶwCnv--5ާM2Sw|jFMi3mE C3/ݦBѺC}n}oVͷQF6ݻ9ZjuPEѵj(i~mde_]b͛jC}Uѷ 1doN橗nnE G>_NNnuQCSiQMܫM7Qv[nG&kQF55vtmv}u Mem9ihGE 5Tm*nwMQNZv7..>Zv7|PShۺW妳PӨoMf˹u:GFQ*ѻmB.rTvmFݴz߼55wShVUw|n~o_̿E;GMi-ioG*Ͽ,rw~2fLfo5S]/3Oq%wu9~LIz/x|nffԙWj& -K{ƛڦ"c~G6F 7o[+NZ6ޣoᢛѻ7QEShMSU~ju9Wm?zm;MQMfC5Mu35;ovڿz4BmUMU}߽F7nnhݶjy}QRSvS~]vF6֣妷-IhnhmZ>oᢅj]C5 nu Mܻ~fg_D:ZqFk7^].I"ƭ8-zn?ӛwPͺ-S]ZŮʷV۶UvѶ~v~F*kּI2]:?2ovx^kSFo-6v \ӕiV6;.?.{xZb}խ/ ]?Qk_]ɺZk5:SvӶv(ESn(ohm7ӶѺ;|QMTnnu.6:5 }unwnNCns5 զިٶ]kZ~ms#7vƻ.+IY7}ݫ]V[Z|w2i}j۩CSWjӷQMFߚSij7QN m Qnr- F>*9c*xkϚͰ<=%|G}]tkvݣw47BvѷzmͶͷl*V\goi]kg _2mSYh_f,|/ݧ|j=hT77LUk׮im]'ԟMVjW]5F~[ki,]%dr]:i.(GާS[}?M:mE6Z6Vm9V}6zk |2Tu лGMfShF7v-jQWnYM256Z;mʭM\>CI7If>[/sWhZMg_j.hB(j6*(VE6j>P})u5hofoE;wT֪7QM'\^]kWaV5oh^v'qvӷS~oGݡBu6fU]-qֹ5amK-+h`9$_VwC}:Wnk}oG|M:;;vfUUFFEwGoUXXgnXZzNۺQMZeevyÛV-vLUhs55WmM}ߖ*;j)QC||Q(۩zM wOGʿzhu ߻Fwާ*/ަu5ޡwSVi٣u5nQ~feUr|U_5y>1ڮ6_3k#UsՖk!ݫvɳͱ󳧳ܻӳwGj۷ɲi-;ZQhݷdzfګqmy5h:պic̣QiF(ޣu̿ޮ֚OffVnCu..57ۺLg mItoe_^ Gx- l*:1MNv3QMnjC-9o+m?ޣj57P߻B56ڍXju-m &or|/jmJi77ݏuuWڴ7\,"a_q0갪&-46jnQi59UU~jZk7}uqZc| nM)? cUMEuGWAƪښoz[*-7Ӷs\-m$VkګmcګW7mcӾU7m:ߚ}ߖm2~Cg nXukf֯_]1*ƻUVڴ|۾yfiunӾP)>⡳u7Q7ڿ7-7;R3ϲѴڢ57(MC7hU쳾gdT<;foi,*Ikl*|GPK:KI|\m .c_6. _ج6<#H/͖F_|NP۷QE6Sf~76zMӷMiwPͶMffXaiWuyߎ5KUUϋ$ׯ6n f-V㍕VWWձm<#i&ou}o\7̵Fړ\N̶va_g k\>6V[8UY]bS~Z>mn.*ai&mz˯_-v߼imj»W7E٦7m;oP6kPז6=$&Ze}qcUUmEݿ5;w4}hi3QNӖu7Sjoݡz|m:'u;j Qmi˶SvvMF(hn֣ZvߖvQՓkVzll6ZsGG5E/O_buz7+kUUUi夛kv3G ~d*c(֤aH寘wVFSڧQMjr C56znm7vաh_iMonVzm^HㅚF׋Zy.;x~jޣrm.#M"ԍ7:-7.ڍmkq?jZ~tq柢gmZ*-7fhum7u;jm;ѻQ|}u6](дSh5桨E5[nZ)tmmjr}nBӖQMfTnivWm3Tr\G m$,qju/Itec>eI]#7WY vUVjwy1oÙd;yZ6Ho67SwQV̴nMoiShNFj2ujoz;x3}B\-ڮIc#}&XxY-鶊|k<3oB3|kz;Xc9U_Pqo$5I5Iw˵jΏktB5sz-qa3|hӼac~_EVVݺi~j6nZ|G(VX5imfWXivz=۹Wj縓Z`Ulv_`گYVcs.Pԡt?kд]>=/M5VVr̫k¿_k.j̿jovOɎfUf Ji5F.7su$*ú g溑(]}(5,y.$fZmKX:԰aVpiYi۾Z7|6}Su7sz㦫|'Eۖu7vړ(_NS~E; /лۚmmGdYBMjw4- 9w}v6۩PMm;wU|v-J>2fyu/I]&}5Wޭ۪Ճ>ṟ ֥HNwkm2G[jЪ7voѵhۺNw47ڿz8U|̿6.//fY?hJǹZ̵b='GM߼ek66v37իoC-65e__G/I\{컋Bf8پC^4nٛo)vzQw47L̿yksyiͤZɶ9Z-zR֜wnoޮzn2VKoUy+y;fj 7I|orvymo Bo5]HZ?ݭUco/Vk0Z=zJ6VY[u;weն9WNYgBǻov.ڰ]Wnc56Gݣvk7ZO]̫s>.fao#n&ZlvzƤjlXx~eV5ګZ7C57U̵ אƻET״Y6HTxOO2S/Ϻӗzۮڑ/om6O2hOe'޵>'mTfodUw# [|+GmלR𞼺m\׼|;ԯ<3o6oWaF_Mff|7P59hjmmfjiQN|vC--~j>o6>Z6~5Zп 2-aꚤaHRiz\n**9fwHʫ\>ML}Vmi::|1maWoݧ32F̪m[G \VL뚃nVoS 6M~ Kd, KuWU-rMkq;n6]RnVDLmh*)Tu R6ծ'm8l!۹薌kH3/SmU*ެ=G^"|I+Zu~$4 ŮmB~|]#mU?/̻kcL{˯/,t:I<ˋ]vh4kןjv]qӶ~j|-#eᴟa/Vܵ5:>mՓ̫bѳ}ZV[UTjͤgluOkM47^mvBƿZwSv BbƻUgm:tS~7w4ʪ>jnvu7黫ε%Cj'jUd9$o]dZ HZOFmYU^o]I֦֮#ܲ7PMUS/E_:O \z|+yJ &5Z~UU6F>Uk5 GNiimZ>fnk=&keVWr|ۥT>#}?i3WeUUc]j.s3QF7-}rmZ6QiQFlzQC|Bj:wC.6 Cnu5hfS~jY٤m\6'f[Z^Hj7SYUk mo5+ko/*ݬ:9T͵jvvkqǺ8~iZhʭ'Uy5Zw|v]iv34mh>ߴjj5(ѷ\7;k]۾յ5$37ݯ-?<[-YW}vdZ4.k\ơ (Z;v]ǦHyfז[c_.jhfm}ԟ7v1[ ˺6]eO󠱍dVƪWӗfMoޯ1E"PG>4]rV[[֖ng=2"Myc[I[ڶc3|ʿ,uv5:}ۯvKMm5==W?Q_-7onMj6ӗjZjۗj7v m__kZ펽waIVowUȼ&Zz|,̿5\<*V5jo-hm;m-6ѵUhӖ6Vrv4=>ᦂVFm֓|ߖ;m|V*?4.k57TFQE5. 1mE(Zu7ѷu SM_Mu-BXԾhcVizL60˹Z_7Tr̰X]^Mx_Z&դʫݮ'D?^G#*Wi5p$UZ,v$oVZMjڌ/ڵ1ƻVeW$f>ϋTյ&G괴 ]7k۵~Zj$fK˝ٯ5\k}E~έwV,jTu?OtJOReam򴛫RN5clF;iZY[->*:õ<<-ծE<"j4v+kll VGfL+mwp^Yc|]ŵcUS6(C+Sv ާ74}75QԴuKVUhڼQ;[ηoӠ4,+yj,Kڎxu{_}Mz^TI$eUթacogn۪ƵjMuhunknjrmQ>fjwSmN(ӨݺۨZ7|}(QEnuzoݦG˷ӾZ?TmjuZvݫFi۩ӷQGݣȻC7ͶݢӖEFj6MC7jpѷ)!FZvݻYiuEmy7U8m~:҂;uՊk/^]-q{Oe7FWq6:lkyRUnt{VfZVڪj$ 3axlnt%*)ֺfֵtj~tѯwWA==_ 쬴{8!X'ẏm1ȿV<dm>o 6WZk5NFڎZY#oj 58V~oNvF֣梏F5ougͣ6-afj: 6MkJm3-7u Q Eju6֢iۿ_S_CmZZ7PN(eEQF|]ݫGj7G}7PMF*7 -/T)QBvG/EEm:QBu {i7h 7|࢝+QMZlF6Szfm̻oO.kV^HUj mm~h]^ v(E7'Z-VfVoZt6{Z!Uvm7B|}-7oCB֢m k-hzrSi- i;jv-viEhGݣkS~sQSݣv(u NUTQjh֦m}r[vݫBMPS6U|B 6|iNmuiCnv?VE:)56OMzQQ}?TnmP۩5 NZ>m-:2*7N ̴QEh|6߼GGe}⢛- Qn|ݻi}rj(iۨ}6E5u:i)5Q+- өm.6ѻUN7-z۶vi5H5m;QMQFڍռhMf~ju PQCBE:m7oEm_F(Fk|3*.C۶VZnj*נAokkWjOGݢCSۺoӶv; 7nm9Zo+QQF65i*nsnmu7n4mou7ݢRSh:(}u|ni56QMPSYo7Tmѷ墏Bi7ަS~ԋGPwi/P߽4 ;u EQ}ۛm5V N4/m5 ۾m7rлw57vFhܴ}Qݣvu ߽N]Si55n 0?٬'CTe~[XUjE m MPi|o M }(_GZsQ5 mmS~e|mjoF*)FmmfлZj>_n>j>yhݶ>Z(u}n-;Q妵hUhZ)۾Z6ަQnkQMoӶѻ(_imSvQMSvGNzmYEQN566Bu:CGNFn7mn:sIc2dek+#]ymwn"8UU]Zi-9٨mvw55:)QEѵڴnZ7*ѹhkQ[6[m (GCnSQhfvnNUV/EGͷ:*(:7QhڭFhC|QSo⢛ݺ>пvwNh[N塨GmSW7SQhѵNڴ_TjSjnfTtii-VB|NvGQ*9#{TR}ᦶnyGʴ5/Zh7SiݿޣFߛѷ梊>;(Z?4Pv:?m6m -Gд֧-NVfts|FQN(2/E7ڿvS٣E7ۗTnhGݣeNU|vӿu -SzMYCEڦj'ަSvGC-6_F7|5IE ˶Eh?i-9~j( m:NЫӾo 7sSjnP-7m;m voP>ZnFk|umhݶ>Mm|ʴwޢu7M]Nz?ڢoj>e۶i{wQ 7S7snv]NڿĴ7PG|ݻsSjrnGhݶwݧ/Fu6SG-/ާ|S~Z6˺[vB?2 YM?57k-~oB.jд6+nW}>5r:}_ӷmv)NZ>Z7mZ6;knknn 7sSާ|m9~j6ڣm7k59VC3Q]y5+}vݵn6ih/Toӷm+QCPZVQQQ;>57ZSWSwN;oi[hݦ|PG>ӨV۩{д 7ݧSwvN_>;mj?T6k/Bӕh:k5(ݪN:6y jӷQF65;nj>mZ)۪6-;7w4mnoFjw̴)Sh (Z?s-j(]ާ6F?+|6֣ C|-nSݣv֣w4nEzZ>m/ݣ*пSBQhmv>jmu 4ߚ hj6nfާmZoy-;m7(Ӛi3}v(NݺNZm|ޢ wi/ݣT~];j>Bw|)nQQ5UhinڴSw|G4n]GS~QF67AiNf_Zk-7m ~ R}m5vunZju6߽NѺ55ݢBzC}7 6;[sQFMovvM۷дQE/ۖrѵ~G j5iwQ gNVhyfQ3Sm F|Mfm2QGSv:m: 7*>_SSYjs2BF35лQ7Q7?ޢ7P̴}wޡwQiT|ZrۚѶmCPCGY(-;nk55ZrӾ6Su mhBnQNj6.v7QE7uuhB(Eh|6ө٣G4|Fߗv>/iw}(6NdZjrC.6Ѷ>_Q ]55-6߼塨U~;u7w ӕh:57wNh梆Mh_B*?٧|}o;u {h}SW6ӾjBQ_5 Gj>Z?ݣ}(nhNE7E7vwmjoNZ(Wh߻E77n5jEiݣnmQ條Mۺw)Fvk|ݭu7-;wMffW});him+|nޣu9Zh_j=o9nhӿrдS7u Mh}ᢝivu7F)MjsSieڑZkTC6֤gݴhlt+SS~ NB5Zk7NZ~Z6Z(58s֓QMFKHC|>74nrmi2ѻvMVZ)v:r5T C4jGj6MSvB7Qhfh_2j-- @\4}(+nnhE5N6U)m[sP/Mvmu6 kS5>ZP Z7|ߙwӨjZo4ziىDyK http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Reports_to_the_AG_All_Reports_Family_Law_and_Child_Protection_-_Final_ReportyK http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Reports_to_the_AG_All_Reports_Family_Law_and_Child_Protection_-_Final_ReportQDyK whttp://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Violence_-_Division_11_of_the_Family_Law_Act_1975yK http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Violence_-_Division_11_of_the_Family_Law_Act_1975X@X !5Normal1$7$8$H$$CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH sH tH 2@2 !5 Heading 1@&P@P - Heading 2$<@&56CJ\]aJd@d !5 Heading 3"$$7@&^7`a$5CJ$\aJ$mH sH J@J !5 Heading 4$@&6CJ]aJmH sH H@H !5 Heading 5$@&>*CJaJmH sH J@J !5 Heading 6$@&5CJ\aJmH sH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListLB@L !5 Body Text$ a$CJaJmH sH ,O, !5 CharSectnorOr !5 paragraph,a l(^l`$CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH sH tH vO"v !5 subsection,ss n^n`$CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH sH tH XO2X !5paragraph(sub),aa 2^2`DP@BD !5 Body Text 2$a$ OJQJ^JFQ@RF !5 Body Text 3CJaJmH sH HbH !5 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ6U@q6 - Hyperlink >*B*phf^@f - Normal (Web)dd1$7$8$H$[$\$OJQJ^JmH sH tH ZOZ -footerdd1$7$8$H$[$\$OJQJ^JmH sH tH 4 @4  xFooter  9r .)@.  x Page NumberՋBAe{|` }  { ,e  LMUWX fgh<m`e=>?@HdeIJ./ ! !d#e#G%H%Y%&&&&'x'''[(((())))***n,o,p,,,,...314111!3"3A4B4C4D4E4F4G4X45568666666688999b<c< > >>>>>x@y@z@{@|@@AABABBCyCCDODDDDDDDDEE FFFFGG_>_··ee֋ V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNamehttp://www.microsoft.comV*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState_*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ X Ӌ֋Ӌ֋ & . cd ((((@,E,G4G455<<q=y=FFFF^^__``ffcgdgh#hi i.k.kkk~llmnpp^q_qrrOsOsuuyyyyazizz‹ŋЋ֋Ӌ֋wv Tear2î89gb\VbPfJ}vo!l$`*h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`. 9gbeaVbPfr2!lv  @OJQJ^Jo(                                             ha"Hxdd"Hx>D^/5]$ :@ ;W ; I )U VKP3 "2p@)h!3# v# %Y>) o+Y`1 #98<9l9!;8-=&A:CLFRFAGnGGTH~ICK'APyQ REURtgT<7Wj'YvX\% _=hs5j?j klUs uhu+w xa}x~BX'g kY}k]hmZ|3xVPAJyh-&M!^ !5Y'|7M@rB ":s*BR TlhqZf9Vc~t>+1~2 QWR LTn1F.[4RotKqx@(CJ?N9v-< dg._֋?!0@ ? Ջ@@Unknown Gz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial3z Times5& zaTahoma7&  Verdana?5 z Courier New;WingdingsS PalatinoBook Antiqua"1h+tzvGvGYn4dgg 2qHX ?!52 Women's Legal Service (Brisbane)DEASSNCSMC,        Oh+'0  ( H T `lt|$Women's Legal Service (Brisbane)DEASS Normal.dotNCSMC4Microsoft Office Word@NZ@fwC@>؈v՜.+,D՜.+,P  hp  UNISAGg !Women's Legal Service (Brisbane) Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA<8 whttp://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Violence_-_Division_11_of_the_Family_Law_Act_1975 http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Reports_to_the_AG_All_Reports_Family_Law_and_Child_Protection_-_Final_Report ,mailto:laca.reps@aph.gov.au x mailto:ncsmc@ncsmc.org.au   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxz{|}~Root Entry F<D؈Data yE1TableUiWordDocument;SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F>bData yE1TableUiWordDocument;՜.+,D՜.+,P  hp  UNISAGg !Women's Legal Service (Brisbane) Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA<8 whttp://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Violence_-_Division_11_of_the_Family_Law_Act_1975 http://law.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Reports_to_the_AG_All_Reports_Family_Law_and_Child_Protection_-_Final_Report ,mailto:laca.reps@aph.gov.au x mailto:ncsmc@ncsmc.org.au SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq