Tim,
Thanks for taking time to respond - the written word often fails to adequately express intention - I am grateful and not being sarcastic.
Perhaps you can clarify something for me?
I'm just a well-intentioned poster and not naive enough to think my experience are universal truths. I'm a bloke who spent $30 000 on family law without ever walking into a family court room. I did think about doing a law degree as a result of my experiences and read up on uni courses, until someone said to me "your ex wife has caused you so much grief, why would you want to deal with other people and their ex's". And, yep my posts are energetic - I'm also hoping they're accurate and feel free to correct me if you see an error. But henceforth I will sign off with Sammy - Punter....
Next - yup, mediation ain't always cheaper. Relationships Australia can do it for nothing, or next to nothing - Charged me maybe $100. But it doesn't involve solicitors, that is why I encouraged the original poster to crunch the numbers...
ABC has already spent money getting a solicitor to write letters to the ex with no result. So compromising has been tried and failed - flogging a dead horse. Tim correct me if I'm wrong but once you make a court application, is it very likely that the court will in the first instance order mediation again anyways so if you're in a situation where history shows there ain't any give and take then doing mediation with solicitors prior to court, only to be ordered to do it again is a waste of money?
Now I reckon that is why an opinion from a punter outside the system is worthwhile - just to give a different perspective to that offered by a solicitor. Let;s move on..
Now the written word often fails to express the intent and the intent wasn't to patronise. And like I said. If ABC reckons mediation is doomed to failure - then why bother? Especially when you're only gonna be forced by the magistrate to mediate again anyways....
So the reason assets in joint names is a 'game changer' is because for most punters going to court for asset division just ain't worth it because the cost of the assets when considered along side the costs of running the case means that unless there is an asset that is mutually owned in law it is best to avoid court. IF however, there is a joint asset then it can't just be left alone - it needs to be sorted and as such court is the only way of sorting it.
So to finish my rant - I do think getting a solicitor is the best option - but - when the average income in Australia is about $80 000, solicitors are beyond the average punter. And Tim I'd really like to hear your opinion on this one... Maybe solicitors work within the constructs of the legislation and as such have a narrow - legalistic perspective when providing advice rather than looking at the big picture.... So to illuminate my point.
My solicitor advised me to continue paying the mortgage even though I wasn't allowed near the house courtesy of an AVO. Solicitor told me to keep paying the mortgage because I had a legal responsibility to do so.... So while solicitors know the law - they don't know the personalities involved. So when I chose to ignore the solicitor and I stopped paying the mortgage my ex moved from refusing to negotiate / discuss child access to being very willing to negotiate/ discuss. But that requires an ability to remove the emotion from the situation and be strategic and that can mean putting legal principles aside and finding alternate ways of moving forward.
Now I don't think a hell of a lot of people can do that all that well and I know I have failed on that front once or twice. So for example at mediation my ex suggested a limited financial agreement where I paid $500 a fortnight not the $400 assessed by CSA - I was enraged - how dare the ex demand more money says I. My solicitor put me in my place and reminded me I had told my solicitor I was happy to pay $550 for 3 years if it stitched up the deal. I had failed to be rational and having the solicitor there to remind me was beneficial. But I do think opinions from a site like this from outsiders can be beneficial in finding solutions or at least bouncing ideas around in a way that helps give folks insights without the expense.
So ABC - sorry kind of took over your thread - To answer your question a solicitor can organise a tele-conference if both parties agree. Since that is the question you asked. But again - there is strategy here. Might be better to file for court in your location. Once confronted with the complexities of the ex getting a solicitor near where you filed and all the other expenses it might motivate them to start compromising....
My thinking goes like this. Folk rarely do stuff without a sledgehammer (motivator). Now if you have spent money on letters from solicitors and gotten no-where then it is time to up the ante. Now the solicitor's letter would have indicated court was an option if a compromise cant be found - So the passive threat of court has gotten you no-where. So we need to find a bit more motivation and the fear/threat/ of court is often that motivator.
Now my understanding is that most cases get sorted without the magistrate making a decision. Often this happens outside the court while the magistrate is still deliberating - But you gotta apply that pressure to encourage the other party to start compromising.
