Interaction between FDR and protection orders

23.31 As discussed in Chapters 21 and 22, s 60I of the Family Law Act requires that, before applying for a parenting order under pt VII of the Act, a person must first make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute by FDR. In some cases, however, separating families who have experienced family violence will already have made contact with the legal system through protection order proceedings under state and territory family violence legislation. Where parties have obtained a protection order under a state or territory law and then seek to resolve their parenting disputes through FDR, the existence of, and conditions contained in, the protection order will be relevant to an FDR practitioner’s assessment of whether and how FDR should be conducted.

23.32 This section discusses two issues arising out of interactions between FDR for family law matters and protection orders made under family violence legislation: the potential for FDR processes to be in conflict with protection orders, and the role of protection orders in FDR processes. The Commissions consider options to minimise inconsistency between protection orders and the requirement to attend FDR, and the use of protection orders in FDR processes to identify family violence and manage the risks associated with it.

Inconsistencies between protection orders and participation in FDR

23.33 As discussed in Chapter 21 of this Report, s 60I of the Family Law Act requires that, before applying for a parenting order, a person must first make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute by FDR. Subject to certain exceptions—including where the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been, or there is a risk of, family violence by one of the parties to the proceedings—a court must not hear an application for such an order unless the applicant has filed a certificate from an FDR practitioner.[39] A s 60I certificate may be issued on a number of grounds, including on the basis of an assessment by an FDR practitioner that ‘it would not be appropriate’ to conduct or continue FDR.[40] Such an assessment requires the FDR practitioner to consider whether the ability of a party to negotiate freely is affected by one or more of a number of factors which are potentially relevant to violence.[41]

23.34 The determination by an FDR practitioner that a matter is unsuitable for FDR and the consequent issuing of a s 60I certificate to that effect, relieves the parties of the obligation to attempt to resolve their dispute in FDR prior to initiating family law proceedings. The court, however, retains the power under s 13C of the Family Law Act to order the parties to attend FDR at any point in the proceedings—even where a s 60(I) certificate has been issued.

23.35 In some cases, conditions of protection orders made under family violence legislation may be inconsistent with an order or a requirement, under the Family Law Act, obliging the parties to attend FDR. This may give rise to an issue of inconsistency of laws as envisaged by s 109 of the Australian Constitution. Section 109 operates so that where an order made under state legislation is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth law will prevail and the order will be invalid, to the extent that the order is inconsistent with the Commonwealth law. On this point, the High Court has held that, pursuant to s 109, a state or territory law will be inoperative to the extent that it would

alter, impair or detract from the Commonwealth law’s conferral of jurisdiction [on a federal court] by directly or indirectly precluding, overriding or rendering ineffective an actual exercise of that jurisdiction. The practical effect of that pro tanto invalidity of the state or territory law is that orders made in the exercise of the Commonwealth jurisdiction will prevail over the provisions of the state or territory law or orders made or acts done in the exercise of power or authority which the state or territory law purportedly confers.[42]

23.36 In the context of a protection order relating to parties who become involved in a family law parenting dispute, inconsistency may arise, for example, in circumstances where the protection order imposes an absolute prohibition on contact of any kind, including indirect contact. In such circumstances, s 109 of the Constitution will render inoperative the protection order conditions, to the extent that they are inconsistent with requirements, or orders made, under the Family Law Act with respect to FDR.[43] In practice, where inconsistencies arise, an FDR practitioner will generally refer parties to a magistrates court to obtain a variation of the order. This has the undesirable effect of repeated contact with the justice system and increased costs for parties.

23.37 In addition to possible inconsistency of laws, as discussed above, practical problems may be caused by protection order conditions that conflict with the arrangements made for FDR.[44] For example, a protection order will often prohibit a person from contacting or approaching another person. FDR processes requiring the presence of both parties could, therefore, be in conflict with a protection order.

23.38 Most commonly, this issue is dealt with expressly in the application forms for protection orders, which allow for an exception to prohibitions on contacting the protected person for certain purposes, including in relation to FDR processes. There is such an exception in the application forms of Victoria, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT.[45] The form for South Australia also allows for a standard exception for counselling (but not mediation) if it is directed by the Family Court, and for any orders made by the Family Court.[46] The application form in NSW refers to an exception for counselling, mediation and conciliation.[47] There is no standard exception referred to in the forms for Queensland[48] or Western Australia.[49]

23.39 Typically, the standard condition prohibiting contact automatically includes an exception allowing contact for the purposes of FDR process. The ACT form, however, enables the applicant to nominate which exceptions to the prohibition on contact should apply, including at counselling or mediation.

23.40 A different approach is taken in Western Australia. The Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) provides that it is a defence to a breach of a protection order if the person was using FDR as defined by the Family Law Act or using conciliation, mediation or another form of consensual dispute resolution provided by a legal practitioner.[50] This is the only such provision in family violence legislation.

23.41 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions expressed the view that it is preferable to minimise the potential for conflict between protection orders and Family Law Act provisions relating to FDR through an exception to a condition of a protection order, rather than provide (as is done in Western Australia) in legislation that attendance at mediation is a defence to a breach of a protection order. The Commissions proposed that state and territory courts should ensure that application forms for protection orders include an exception allowing contact for the purposes of FDR processes (an FDR exception clause).[51] The Commissions indicated that this exception should apply to participation in FDR processes as ordered or directed by a family court, or provided under the Family Law Act.

Submissions and consultations

23.42 A number of stakeholders indicated their support for an FDR exception clause to be included in application forms for protection orders.[52] A small number of these submissions expressly stated their support for an optional rather than automatic FDR exception.[53] It was noted that the automatic addition of an exception clause would not be safe or appropriate in some situations.[54] It was also suggested that the court making the protection order should assess whether FDR is appropriate before including such an exception clause.[55] Where a court making an interim or final protection order has considered the appropriateness of parties attending FDR, and determined not to insert an exception clause in the protection order, National Legal Aid submitted that the court should clearly indicate on the order that it has considered the nature of the dispute and has made an order excluding FDR.[56]

23.43 A Victorian stakeholder, arguing that an FDR exception should only be inserted at the discretion of the protection order applicant, noted that the standard entry of FDR exceptions in protection orders confuses women who think they are obliged to undertake mediation and therefore agree to contact.[57] National Legal Aid supported the protection order applicant being given the option to elect to have an exception clause for FDR, but was of the view that even if the applicant chose such an exception clause, the court should still consider the appropriateness of FDR.

23.44 Concern was expressed about the potential for an FDR exception clause to undermine the use of screening and risk assessment tools because it might be seen, or relied upon, as an endorsement of the use of FDR in family violence cases.[58] Another stakeholder was concerned that an FDR exception clause appeared to be inconsistent with a protection order prohibiting contact and with s 60I(9) of the Family Law Act, which exempts parties from the s 60I requirement (to attempt to resolve a parenting dispute by FDR) in cases of actual or potential family violence.[59]

23.45 Some stakeholders also commented about the wording of the FDR exception clause. Women’s Legal Service Queensland suggested that, rather than ‘allow contact for the purposes of FDR’, the exception should state ‘FDR is allowed to be conducted between the parties’.[60] This would avoid the respondent harassing the applicant on the pretext of making contact for the purposes of setting up the FDR. Domestic Violence Victoria and others, in a joint submission, commented that the exception clause should specify the type of contact and its limitations[61] to avoid the contact arrangement being used for further abuse.[62] Women’s Legal Services NSW submitted that the exception clause should clearly refer to FDR processes as ordered or directed by the Family Court, or provided under the Family Law Act.[63]

Commissions’ views

23.46 As noted above, the Family Law Act provides for exemption from the requirements for FDR on the basis of, amongst other things, family violence. In many cases, FDR processes are likely to be inappropriate if a family violence protection order has been made. As discussed in Chapter 21, however, there may be cases where FDR is appropriate—despite the existence of a protection order.

23.47 A family violence protection order prohibiting contact between parties to a family law dispute need not necessarily conflict with the use of FDR. Strategies such as shuttle mediation may be employed, for example, to enable compliance with a family violence protection order prohibiting direct contact. In the Commissions’ view, qualified and experienced FDR practitioners, considering the matter at the time that the family law dispute arises—employing appropriate screening and risk assessment tools and taking into account the conditions of a family violence protection order, amongst other things—are well placed to consider the arrangements that may be made for appropriate and safe contact between the parties through FDR processes.

23.48 The Commissions note that the suitability or otherwise of a matter for FDR is an issue to be determined by an FDR practitioner in accordance with the Family Law Act and the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008,[64] and the family courts in accordance with the Family Law Act.[65]These matters are properly determined, at the relevant time, by the family courts, and by FDR practitioners, in accordance with family law legislation, rather than family violence courts exercising jurisdiction under state or territory family violence legislation.

23.49 In addition, conditions of protection orders that are inconsistent with an order or a requirement, under the Family Law Act, will be rendered inoperative The approach taken in most jurisdictions, of allowing an exception to prohibition on contact for the purposes of FDR, as part of a standard order, minimises the potential for inconsistency between protection orders and legislative requirements and arrangements for participating in FDR.

23.50 The Commissions appreciate the concern expressed by the Women’s Legal Service, Queensland that allowing contact for the purposes of FDR may provide a means by which the respondent to a protection order is able to harass the protection order applicant. FDR may be conducted without direct contact to minimise the potential for such harassment—for example, by using shuttle mediation, as noted above. To further minimise the potential for harassment, the Commissions are of the view that, rather than stating that contact is permitted for the purposes of FDR, the terms of a protection order should indicate that participation in FDR is not precluded by the protection order. Arrangements can then be made for FDR without direct contact between the parties.

23.51 The Commissions note that informal attempts to mediate by family or community members may not include appropriate safeguards for addressing family violence, and may leave victims vulnerable to pressures to mediate. The Commissions are of the view, therefore, that family violence protection orders should expressly refer to participation in FDR processes as ordered or directed by a family court, or provided under the Family Law Act.

Recommendation 23–4 State and territory courts should ensure that the terms of a family violence protection order indicate that participation in family dispute resolution, as ordered or directed by a family court, or provided under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), is not precluded by a family violence protection order.

Recommendation 23–5 State and territory courts should ensure that parties to family violence protection order proceedings are informed that, if involved in proceedings or family dispute resolution under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):

(a) they may be exempt from requirements to participate in family dispute resolution under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth);

(b) they should inform a family dispute resolution practitioner about any family violence protection orders or proceedings; and

(c) they should inform family courts about any family violence protection orders or proceedings, where family court proceedings are initiated.

The role of family violence protection orders in FDR processes

23.52 The next issue for consideration is the use of family violence protection orders in FDR processes. An evaluation of FDR practices in the legal aid sector noted that FDR practitioners across all jurisdictions commented that failures to ask about and obtain copies of protection orders could ‘derail the conferencing process’.[66]

23.53 Some, but not all, examples of screening tools in the Framework for Screening and Risk Assessment published by the Australian Government for use in the family law sectorinclude questions about the existence of protection orders.[67]An example of a question about seeking revocation of protection orders is also included.[68] The Victorian Government’s comprehensive family violence screening and risk assessment refers to the existence of protection orders, and includes questions about breaches of protection orders as relevant to assessment of family violence risks.[69]

23.54 The existence of a protection order is significant for screening and risk assessment because it indicates that there are likely to be issues of safety involved that need to be addressed. The conditions of a protection order may also provide useful information about the nature of the risks involved. Further, it may be necessary to obtain a copy of a protection order so that FDR practitioners can take protection order conditions into account when making arrangements for FDR.

23.55 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions asked whether, in practice, protection orders are identified and used in risk assessment and management in FDR processes and whether any reforms are necessary to improve these processes.[70]

Submissions and consultations

23.56 A number of submissions on this point indicated that protection orders are being used appropriately in FDR processes to identify and manage the risks associated with family violence.[71] National Legal Aid responded that legal aid commission FDR conferencing programs identify existing protection orders through intake and screening processes, and take them into account when assessing suitability of matters for mediation, and in the management of mediation and resulting agreements.

23.57 Family Relationship Services Australia commented that well-developed tools for intake and ongoing risk assessment are used to ensure that Family Relationship Services ask both parties questions about violence and abuse, and about the existence of family violence protection orders and any previous Family Court orders. These issues are followed up throughout the FDR process. Family Relationship Services rely on clients to answer the questions honestly and to provide copies of any current orders.[72]

23.58 Other stakeholders expressed some concerns about the use of protection orders in FDR processes to identify family violence and manage the associated risks. One stakeholder from a community service and advocacy organisation observed that there is inconsistency in the practice of mediation services; some services are very aware of family violence issues, while others are focused on parent agreement outcomes. This stakeholder referred to ‘poor practice’, including some mediators suggesting to women that they ‘bury’ a protection order so mediation can continue.[73] The Law Society of NSW also believed that the use of protection orders in FDR processes to identify family violence was inconsistent, but noted that this should be addressed by ongoing education of the police, solicitors, the judiciary and the community rather than by legislative reform.[74]

23.59 Another stakeholder (a legal service provider) referred to the risk of exception clauses in protection orders—that permit contact for FDR purposes—being inappropriately relied on to assess a matter as suitable for FDR.[75] This stakeholder noted the need to apply screening and risk assessment frameworks and tools to ensure that legally trained assessors consider more than the terms and conditions of a protection order when assessing suitability of a matter for FDR. The Women’s Legal Service Queensland commented that issues of domestic violence are routinely mediated and that systemic rather than piecemeal reform was needed.[76] The Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas) indicated that protection orders are not identified and used in risk assessment and management in FDR processes; the Department referred to ‘issues and barriers to disclosure and family violence going undetected’ and commented that the sector’s ‘over confidence’ in its management of family violence is ‘problematic’. The Department also referred to an absence of long term research evidence indicating the efficacy of FDR in family violence cases.[77]

23.60 Women’s Legal Services Australia commented that, where there is a protection order, FDR services are more likely to ‘grant an exemption’ from FDR.[78] Women’s Legal Services Australia noted, however, that concerns remain where the family violence victim has been unable to obtain a protection order, or proceedings are in progress, and that greater clarity is required about whether the exemptions from FDR will apply in such cases.[79]

23.61 Domestic Violence Victoria and others, in a joint submission, stated that any screening or risk assessment tool should ask about past or current protection orders, and about the circumstances that led to the application for the order.[80]

Commissions’ views

23.62 While a number of stakeholders indicated that protection orders are being used appropriately in FDR processes to identify and manage family violence risks, it is concerning that there were some indications that this not always the case. Protection orders may provide valuable information about the concerns that need to be addressed for FDR to take place safely. The Commissions agree with Domestic Violence Victoria and other stakeholders that screening and risk assessment tools should ask about past or current protection orders, and the circumstances that led to the application for the orders.

23.63 The Commissions also note the concerns of Women’s Legal Services Australia about situations where the family violence victim has been unable to obtain a protection order or where an application for a protection order has not yet been determined. The Commissions are of the view that, where an application for a protection order is yet to be determined, the circumstances that led to the making of the application for a protection order may be relevant for the purposes of screening and risk assessment. In cases where an order was not made, the circumstances that led to the making of the application may nonetheless be relevant—particularly in cases where an application was withdrawn by the victim.

23.64 The Commissions note that existing family violence screening and risk assessment frameworks published by the Australian Government for use in the family law system, and the Victorian Government’s comprehensive family violence screening and risk assessment framework, include identification of existing and past protection orders and breaches of such protection orders as relevant to assessment of family violence risks. In the Commissions’ view, it would be helpful if family violence screening and risk assessment frameworks, intended for use in FDR processes, included questions about past and current applications for protection orders, as well as about past and current protection orders and any breaches of such orders. As noted elsewhere in this chapter, the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department is currently developing a national framework to support screening and assessment for family violence across the federal family law system. In the Commissions’ view it would be helpful if this framework addressed the need to ask parties about past and current applications for family violence protection orders, as well as about past and current protection orders and any breaches of such orders.

23.65 The Commissions are also of the view that FDR service providers should ensure that tools used for family violence screening and risk assessment include questions about past and current applications for family violence protection orders, as well as questions about past and current family violence protection orders, and any breaches of such orders. Copies of family violence protection orders should also be requested from the parties.

Recommendation 23–6 The Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department and state and territory governments should ensure that family violence screening and risk assessment frameworks indicate the importance of including questions in screening and risk assessment tools about:

(a) past or current applications for protection orders;

(b) past or current protection orders; and

(c) any breaches of protection orders.

Recommendation 23–7 Family dispute resolution service providers should ensure that:

(a) tools used for family violence screening and risk assessment include questions about past and current protection orders and applications, and any breaches of protection orders; and

(b) parties are asked for copies of protection orders.

[39]Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60I(9).

[40] Ibid ss 60I(8)(aa) and (d).The other grounds upon which certificates may be issued are: a party did not attend FDR due to the refusal or failure of the other party (or parties) to attend: s 60I(8)(a); the parties attended FDR with the practitioner, and all parties made a genuine effort to resolve the issue or issues: s 60I(8)(b); the party attended FDR with the practitioner, but that party, or another party did not make a genuine effort to resolve the issue or issues: s 60I(8)(c).

[41]Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (Cth) Reg 25(2).

[42]P v P (1994) 181 CLR 583.

[43] While s 109 refers expressly to inconsistency between state and federal laws, it has operated—in effect—in cases of inconsistency between the provisions of orders made in the exercise of legislative powers. For example, the High Court has applied the section to inconsistencies between an order of the Family Court and the provisions of state legislation:Ibid, 601–603. In this case, the relevant ‘law’ for the purposes of s 109 was the authorising or enabling legislation—the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)—which invested the Family Court with jurisdiction to make the relevant order.

[44] Conditions of protection orders are discussed in Chapter 11.

[45] Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Information for Application for an Intervention Order (2009) <www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au> at 2 February 2010; Magistrates Court of Tasmania, Application for a Family Violence Order <www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/divisions/family_violence/forms> at 29 March 2010; Northern Territory Magistrates Courts, Application for Domestic Violence Order <www.nt.gov.au/justice/ntmc/forms_fees.shtml> at 29 March 2010; Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Application for a Domestic Violence Order (2009) <www.courts.act.gov.au
/magistrates> at 9 February 2010.

[46] Magistrates Court of South Australia, Affidavit to Support Application for Domestic Violence Restraining Order <www.courts.sa.gov.au> at 8 March 2010.

[47] New South Wales, Application—Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. The condition states that the defendant must not ‘approach or contact the protected person(s) by any means whatsoever, except through the defendant’s legal representative or as agreed in writing or as permitted by an order or directions under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), for the purpose of counselling, conciliation, or mediation’.

[48] Magistrates Court of Queensland, Protection Order Application (Form DV1) <http://www.
communityservices.qld.gov.au/violenceprevention/forms/> at 16 August 2010.

[49] Magistrates Court of Western Australia, Violence Restraining Order Application <www.magistratescourt.wa.gov.au/content/restraining.aspx> at 16 August 2010. The application form for Western Australia does not allow applicants to indicate which conditions they would like imposed upon the respondent. The Commissions recommend that application forms for protection orders should be amended to allow applicants to do so: Rec 11–6.

[50]Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 62(1)(a),(b).

[51] Consultation Paper, Proposal 11–4.

[52] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010; Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 162, 25 June 2010; UnitingCare Children Young People and Families, Submission FV 151, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; N Ross, Submission FV 129, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 96, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010; O Rundle, Submission FV 50 27 May 2010; M Condon, Submission FV 45, 18 May 2010. The Queensland Law Society supported the exception but commented that this is a matter within the responsibility of state and territory governments rather than the courts: Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010. One stakeholder agreed subject to the use, where FDR is to be employed in a parenting dispute, of screening and risk assessment frameworks and tools by legally trained assessors who consider more than the terms and conditions of a protection order when determining whether FDR should proceed: Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010. Women’s Legal Service Queensland agreed but suggested careful consideration of the wording of the exception clause: Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010.Women’s Legal Services NSW also made suggestions with respect to the wording of FDR exception clauses, discussed below: Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010. One stakeholder disagreed with the proposal: Confidential, Submission FV 183, 25 June 2010.

[53] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.

[54] Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.

[55] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010. Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010 also indicated assessment should be undertaken to ensure safety and appropriateness of FDR.

[56] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010.

[57] Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010.

[58] J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit Aboriginal Corporation, Submission FV 149, 25 June 2010. The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit Aboriginal Corporation referred to an example of this happening despite an alleged history of extreme family violence.

[59] Confidential, Submission FV 171, 25 June 2010.

[60] Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010.

[61] For example, phone contact only, contact through FDR practitioner.

[62] Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010.

[63] Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010.

[64]Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60I(8)(aa), 60I(8)(d); Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (Cth) reg 25(2).

[65]Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 13C, 60I(9)(b).

[66] KPMG, Family Dispute Resolution Services in Legal Aid Commissions: Evaluation Report (2008), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, 32. In an older survey conducted in 1996, the agencies surveyed all reported asking about protection orders and indicated that a current order would increase their caution about proceeding, although they would not definitely exclude mediation merely because of the order: Keys Young, Research/Evaluation of Family Mediation Practice and the Issue of Violence: Final Report (1996), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, 38.

[67] See Australian Catholic University and Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, Framework for Screening, Assessment and Referrals in Family Relationship Centres and the Family Relationship Advice Line (2008). For examples where protection orders are not asked about, see Attachment A, 79; Attachment F; Attachment G, 109–110. For examples where protection orders are asked about, see Attachment A, 87; Attachment D; Attachment G, 110–111.

[68] Ibid, Attachment G, 111.

[69] Department of Human Services (Vic), Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework (2007), 61.

[70] Consultation Paper, Question 11–3.

[71] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit Aboriginal Corporation, Submission FV 149, 25 June 2010; Family Relationship Services Australia, Submission FV 231, 15 July 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; O Rundle, Submission FV 50 27 May 2010.

[72] Family Relationship Services Australia, Submission FV 231, 15 July 2010.

[73] Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010.

[74] Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010.

[75] This stakeholder referred to an instance where this had happened despite an alleged history of extreme family violence: The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit Aboriginal Corporation, Submission FV 149, 25 June 2010.

[76] Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children was also of the view that protection orders were not being used appropriately and that reform is needed: Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010.

[77] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010.

[78] As discussed in Chapters 21, 22, and above, an FDR practitioner may determine that a matter is not appropriate for FDR because of family violence concerns: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60I(8)(aa) and (d); Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (Cth) reg 25(2).

[79] Women’s Legal Services Australia, Submission FV 225, 6 July 2010.

[80] Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010.