The family law orders only override DV orders where the conditions conflict. That said, if everyone has done their jobs properly then they should rarely conflict.
Agree
Where a conflict will arise a state magistrate should modify the family law order to suit the DV order if the condition is a necessary one. A family court magistrate must consider the conditions on a DV order when putting in place a family law order.
True, but returning to your point of
“...if everyone has done their jobs properly...”.
Approaches taken towards ensuring consistency between orders of the two jurisdictions are applied differently.
Where children are involved and there are no Family Law orders, Magistrates will often already take the approach to include into the DV order provisions allowing for inconsistencies (e.g. for spending time) that may arise in later family law proceedings. Where Family Law orders are already in place, and DV occurs, Magistrates will take into account the family law orders and suspend, revoke or vary the family law orders accordingly.
In family law, DV/DV orders are only 1 of a number of considerations judges must take into account. Unless the litigant seeks specific orders that align the orders of the State Court with the family court orders (or presses the DV), e.g. by seeking an injunction restraining a parent from consuming alcohol when the children are in their care etc., more often than not, judges will take the approach of not making any order in this regard at all. Thus these protections will only be offered by the DV order leading to a need for the litigant/protected person to return to a second system.
I am mindful of the practical difficulties that could arise in suggesting this, but in my view, a far more logical approach, to save litigants from having to repeatedly return to different Court systems, would be for judges of the family courts to actually make specific orders that align with the DV orders of the State Courts and for the penalties of breaching those protection orders to be consistent between the two jurisdictions. However, in circumstances where DV’s have been consented to without admissions...without further supporting evidence and the evidence being tested at trial (which will not happen if parties enter into consent orders), judges would likely be reluctant to make such orders...especially when the Magistrates Courts are equipt to deal with these issues and such orders could lead to the institution of further proceedings.
If they fail to do so then the quickest way to fix it is to put in an application to vary the DV order (vary it by something reasonably minor) and ask the DV magistrate to vary the family law order as well... Cheaper, quicker.
See my suggestion above. Further, Family Law proceedings, especially when domestic/family violence is a factor, can take in excess of 18 months to finalise. My understanding is that there is a 5 year minimum for DVO’s in QLD? With a 5 year order in place, returning to the Magistrates Court would certainly make your suggestion a more practical and cheaper solution. However, for litigants from other States, where no (extensive) DV minimum applies, such as in NSW (12 months?) it would likely be more practical for litigants to instead seek Interim orders (and possibly Final Orders also) consistent with the DV order...as the State Order will likely expire prior to the family law proceedings being finalised.
Another factor not considered is that judges of the family courts rarely take kindly to litigants, including those protected by State DV orders, making “attempts” to override (vary) their orders. Especially when proceedings are still afoot.