VIC Family Court - Provide Family Consultant with a 69ZW Report?

[Malissla]

That may be true, I was mainly commenting on your attitude which I suspect, if you unleash it on the judge, is not going to be very favourable for you... Still, let's see how the judge sees your legal interpretation. I'll be interested to hear.

I ensure my interpretation of the law is correct long before I step inside a court, as to my attitude, I really don't give two fucks what you or anyone else thinks, providing I don't place myself in contempt of court it's of no consequence.

I don't know what is wrong with some of you, I don't want to add the Judge as a friend on my f***ing Facebook page or get family invites.. the judge is there to do a job according to the law.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

I ensure my interpretation of the law is correct long before I step inside a court, as to my attitude, I really don't give two fucks what you or anyone else thinks, providing I don't place myself in contempt of court it's of no consequence.

Good for you. Let's hope the judge doesn't hold a grudge...

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

I take deep offence to your apparent inability to stand up straight, and provide legally correct opinions, it appears your only concern is the court and the Judge's views, and whilst I understand it is clearly in your nature to remain bent over to the extent that your forehead can be placed upon your shoes in order that the Judge can shove it right up you it isn't in my nature and I use the full force of the law and argument upon which I win my cases, unlike you, I sincerely hope your butt recovers.

To be clear, I don't have an "inability to stand up straight, and provide legally correct opinions". My post was a polite way of saying that I'm not going to help you if you're not going to answer simple questions, and do so with an attitude. Given your response, I'm not surprised that you failed to understand that.

The simple point is that the court does not need to state the "relevant law upon which it intends to rely upon". I can see no requirement under the Family Law Act or in the Family Law Rules which says that it does. I can also see:

- Many instances of orders being expressed by the court without stating the ‘relevant law upon which they are based’;

- A power to make orders (Rule 1.10) which makes no mention of your stated requirement;

- Rule 17.02 which deals with varying or setting aside orders, which gives a list of when this rule applies. There is no category for ‘failing to state the relevant law upon which the order is based’ (but there is ‘clerical mistake’ and ‘accidental slip or omission’ – but I doubt those apply here); and

- And, even if there was a rule, Rule 1.12 says that the court may dispense with the Rules at any time.

But good luck to you if you think the court is wrong. If you think the judge, a highly trained and experienced legal professional, who does this day in and day out – and has probably seen every fanciful interpretation going around, at least twice – is going to accept your arguments, then you’re going to need all the luck you can muster.

Of course, if you can point to a requirement which backs up your proposition, beyond your simply repeating it, I’d be interested to see it.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

I don't know what is wrong with some of you, I don't want to add the Judge as a friend on my f***ing Facebook page or get family invites.. the judge is there to do a job according to the law.

I think the salient point that you may be missing is that judges are human and no matter how right you are, if you are as rude and obnoxious to them as you have been to us, you are likely to get the worst possible interpretation of the law and the least charitable response by them. If you're right on the letter of the law and you're able to demonstrate it, you might get the outcome you want in spite of your obnoxiousness. If so, congrats.

 

[Malissla]

Good for you. Let's hope the judge doesn't hold a grudge...

Lets hope the judge does hold a grudge so it ends up being settled in the appeal court where the judgement is final. [Moderated - Inappropriate Language]

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Lets hope the judge does hold a grudge so it ends up being settled in the appeal court where the judgement is final. [Moderated - Inappropriate Language].

If that's your definition of a successful family court case, great. Have a nice evening.

 

[Malissla]

I think the salient point that you may be missing is that judges are human and no matter how right you are, if you are as rude and obnoxious to them as you have been to us, you are likely to get the worst possible interpretation of the law and the least charitable response by them. If you're right on the letter of the law and you're able to demonstrate it, you might get the outcome you want in spite of your obnoxiousness. If so, congrats.

You misjudged me, it's apparent I treat those worthy of respect with respect and those not worthy with disrespect.. suck it up buttercup.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

You misjudged me, it's apparent I treat those worthy of respect with respect and those not worthy with disrespect.. suck it up buttercup/

It's not apparent that you treat anyone with respect at this point.

 

[Malissla]

It's not apparent that you treat anyone with respect at this point.

Except Rod, if you can't give good advice then go way, f**k next you'll be stalking me on Facebook.

 

[Rod]

the law I rely upon is Section 121 (1) of the Family Law Act 1975.. it provides for such reports to be given to Family Consultants by virtue of the fact they are not deemed to be public.

Then you would likely be wrong.

S121 is a prohibitory section, with some exceptions, controlling when someone wants to communicate Family Court court proceedings to the public or a section of the public.

Just because your situation is not covered by s121 it does not mean you can automatically flout a court order. S121 prohibits publishing to the public, or a section of the public, it does not give special rights allowing you to give a report to another person that is a party in the case.

So having ruled out s121, where to go? Other sections of the Family Law Act, three of which are given as guidance in s121(10), then you need to look at the applicable rules of the Family Court, then review the FCC Act, and their rules, then study case law looking for a precedent covering your exact scenario (or something very close to it). Then having done all that, you'll likely arrive at a conclusion that says 'the court has the authority to withhold the report'.

Or you pay for a lawyer to do all that work on a procedural point of family law.

Should the judge feel as though you have wilfully circumvented the courts orders, as well as punishing you, the judge can sack the consultant and order a new consultant be brought in as a replacement, and also award costs against you.