Search icone
Search and publish your papers

Family law – Problem question assignment

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

 
Level
General public
Study
internation...
School/University
Reading...

About the document

Published date
Language
documents in English
Format
Word
Type
presentations
Pages
4 pages
Level
General public
Accessed
0 times
Validated by
Committee Oboolo.com
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. Maria and Homer and the definition of ?associated persons? and cohabitants under the Family Law Act 1996.
  2. Court orders for Maria and how the advice would differ if Maria and Homer were married.
  3. Enforcement of orders.
  4. Conclusion.

Maria and Homer are not married and in order to apply for a protective order Part IV of the FLA Maria will have to come within the definition of ?associated persons? as prescribed by the FLA (A Diduck., & F Kaganas., 2006). Section 62 of the FLA defines ?associated persons? and section 62(3) expressly includes cohabitants within the definition of ?associated persons?. Furthermore, section 62(1) (a) of the FLA defines ?cohabitants? as being ?a man and woman who, although not married to each other, are living together as husband and wife?, which is ultimately a question of fact (S Gore., 2007).

Key Words: Family Law Act 1996, FLA, Non-Molestation Order, Occupation Order, Associated Persons, Domestic Violence, Cohabitation, The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, Children Act 1989, Enforcement.

[...] favour to indicate that she and Homer were both ?cohabitants? for the purpose of falling under the FLA definition of ?associated persons,? which leads us to consider the potential protective remedies available to Maria against Homer under the FLA What Court orders are available to Maria? How would the advice differ if Maria and Homer were married? As stated in the previous section, the two potential court orders available to Maria are a non-molestation order and occupation order and I shall deal with each in turn. [...]


[...] the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and well being of the applicant?. If we apply this to Maria's situation, it is highly likely that the fact that she suffered concussion, coupled with Homer's recurrent violent behaviour will suffice to justify a non-molestation order (Lowestein 2005). As the primary objective under Section 42 of the FLA is to secure Maria's health and safety, it is possible that the order may be imposed for a specified period of time until Homer completes rehabilitation and help for his violent behaviour as he has promised. [...]

Similar documents you may be interested in reading.

Sociology of the family: global advances and challenges

 Science & technology   |  Biology   |  Presentation   |  11/28/2008   |   .doc   |   8 pages

The difficult application of canadian criminal law in Nunavut

 Law & contracts   |  International   |  Term papers   |  09/29/2010   |   .doc   |   57 pages

Top sold for other law subjects

Co-Ownership and joint tenancy problem question

 Law & contracts   |  Other law subjects   |  Presentation   |  08/13/2008   |   .doc   |   5 pages