Freedom Law

Parenting styles, values and changes

Parenting styles, values and changes

It was clear from practitioners’ discussions that different parenting values and styles were inherent in disputes about children. Professionals argued that differences in parenting styles may result in a reluctance, or a complete opposition, from one parent to allow contact with the other parent for fear of exposing the child(ren) to a parenting style that they find unacceptable. There was much discussion about the origins of divergence of parenting styles and ideas were raised about the nature of the relationship between children and parents.

Some practitioners noted that divergence in ideas about parenting and children’s needs is characteristic to all parenting partnerships. As one participant noted:

people have different relationships with their children and … [the children] do different things with each parent … [so] the mother will have one perception of [the] children, their personalities and how they’re doing, and the father will have quite a different perception. (Female case manager, Roundtable Dispute Management [RDM])

It was agreed, however, that divergence of parenting style and values is “exacerbated” in separated families. It was recognised by a number of practitioners that these different parenting styles and values, and an inability to subsequently parent together, may have been why parents separated. However, conversely, such differences can also occur because experiences of parenting after separation are generally very different.

The impact of gender and parental status on parenting concerns was commonly raised. It was noted, for example, that some resident mothers believe that time with non-resident fathers in some way interferes with the child’s typical routine. Several practitioners felt that these concerns can arise from the experiences of mothers in spending more time with the child, which can lead them to pay greater attention to issues such as stability, nutrition, sleep and safety. As one mediator put it:

resident parents see the child a lot more, [and] know their routines and their limits … [and] all the nuances that the non-resident parent doesn’t know. Hence, their arguments tend to centre on these issues. (Mediator, RDM)

Another practitioner suggested that at times this knowledge may be used to exclude the non-resident parent:

One parent, usually the mother, has the belief that she has the full exclusive knowledge about what is good in parenting and [she] has not really let go. (Mediator, Relationships Australia [RA])

In contrast, non-resident fathers were more likely to have concerns about the quantity of time with the child. There was a considerable amount of focus on the origins of non-resident fathers’ concerns about parenting arrangements. Some practitioners pointed out that separation as a life event often acts as a catalyst for parents, particularly men, in reassessing their lives. Several professionals explained that, for some men, separation and divorce could lead to a reappraisal of their role as parents. A common perception was that separation and divorce provides the impetus for some men to:

take stock of their lives and sometimes make changes … [For example], they may have worked a lot when they were in the relationship and they have decided not to work so much to perhaps co-parent the child. (Mediator, Family Mediation Centre [FMC]).

Another commented:

It often takes the impact, or the impetus, of divorce and separation for blokes to get a kick in the arse and say, “Well, you know, 70 hours a week is probably the reason she left me, therefore I need to take stock, and I can take stock by changing my whole philosophy and realising that what’s important [is] my children now and I have to do something about that”. (Mediator, FMC)

However, professionals noted that at times these types of life changes are viewed with scepticism resulting in conflict, particularly when a reduction in work hours, or changes in the type of work performed, have financial consequences in terms of the amount of child support payable. This point was elaborated on in several of the focus groups, with the consensus being that actions such as these may be:

regarded with great suspicion because people are putting negative interpretations on each other on the decisions that they’re making. (Mediator, FMC)

Another mediator from the FMC argued that disputes may arise when a parent wants to make some life changes and be present as a parental figure for the first time following separation, and this renewed interest can be hard for the primary carer to find credible.

Other professionals suggested that societal changes that have led to an increase in men’s involvement in family life and child rearing have also led to an interpretation by some men that their parenting responsibilities are “rights” and “entitlements”. This paternal “stance” was described as a potential trigger for conflict, particularly between parents whose previous relationship was quite traditional in terms of the division of labour within the home. Other professionals interpreted parental contact disputes following separation and divorce as a way in which parents, particularly fathers, seek to prove their love for their children. At the more extreme end of this perception, professionals described hearing parents, usually fathers, saying that although they might lose in court, their children will at least know that they fought for them.

Read more here






Brisbane / Townsville / Sunshine Coast / Gold Coast

Unresolved personal/relationship issues and relationship history

Unresolved personal/relationship issues and relationship history

One professional commented that in cases where there is protracted conflict between the former partners there was usually:

a really problematic relationship and then it just continues … There has been absolutely no communication since separation between the parents … and they don’t want there to ever be any … I think they focus on that rather than coming up with solutions for the child. (Case manager, RDM)

This statement was met with much agreement. Another mediator suggested:

The obvious thing is communication … Characteristically they are blown if their communication is broken down. They get what we call negative intimacy. They make negative assumptions all the time and then they start to communicate less because it’s too hard and the children get caught in the middle, [taking] messages between the parents. (Mediator, RA)

Several professionals argued that a focus on interpersonal issues diminishes a former couple’s ability to be child focused. Even after separation, the emotional ties to one another can still be quite strong and the feelings of hurt, loss and grief may seem insurmountable, particularly in the early days. Many professionals raised this point. One put it this way:

When people separate they can lose their sense of who they are because it is all so tied up in the relationship and [the dispute] gives them another story (as victim), [which] gives them something to hold on to for the moment. (Mediator/psychologist, RA)

Another described the process of dealing with such issues.

People go through different stages [during] separation and after a period there is an acceptance and they grow towards a solution … But in the early stage, just after separation, there is a lot of difficulty in separating the issues between the parents and the issues revolving around the children. (Professional, CSA)

Some professionals also pointed out that parents can repeat relationship patterns of old. Conflict and difficulty in communicating may have been a feature of their relationship prior to separation, and after it.

That’s the only way they know how to deal with each other. (Mediator and family lawyer, FMC)

To illustrate this point, one psychologist and family law practitioner remarked:

The more functional the relationship while it’s together, the more functional the separated parents are going to be. (Family lawyer, Victorian Legal Aid)

This same professional also suggested that, in some cases:

Contact disputes happen before [a] child is even conceived … The seeds are there in the relationship between the parents.

Read more here

Brisbane / Sunshine Coast / Gold Coast / Townsville

The nature of the separation: Who ended the relationship and was there a third party?

The nature of the separation: Who ended the relationship and was there a third party?

The nature of a separation was seen as a “crucial factor” in predicting and understanding the character of ongoing parenting relationships between former partners. A number of professionals discussed the impact of third-party involvement in the demise of a relationship; that is, where one party has been left for another person. The prevalent feeling among professionals was that when this occurs it often:

creates a level of anger and hostility … [which] is very difficult at that point in time. (Mediator, RA)

Another related factor seen to trigger conflict between former partners was the degree to which both parties had come to accept the ending of their relationship and which party ultimately decided to end the relationship, or which party “called the shots”. Some professionals suggested that these different roles (that of the “leaver” and the “left”) meant that the parties were at different stages of grieving and acceptance of their separation and divorce, and at times this led to different emotional responses from the parties.

One mediator elaborated on this point.

Early on … particularly if one person has chosen the separation, they’ve often thought about … how it might play out, but the other person is still dealing with that separation that they didn’t want … [They may also have] a real sense of loss and a sense of injustice: “This has been done to me in some way and I didn’t want it and therefore I am not going to be ripped off any further … so now I am going to fight for my rights and I want a fair go.” (Mediator, FMC)

Read more here

Brisbane / Sunshine Coast / Gold Coast / Townsville

The link between money and contact: The entangled nature of child support and contact and the role of negative attributions around parental motivation

The link between money and contact: The entangled nature of child support and contact and the role of negative attributions around parental motivation

Despite the legal distinctions made between contact and child support, it was apparent from the professionals’ descriptions of their work with parents in these contexts that this distinction is not necessarily experientially felt.15 Several expressed a frustration in trying to help parents understand that the two are not connected; one is about relationships and the other is about money.

You hear it every day … He won’t pay because she doesn’t give him care and she won’t give him care because he doesn’t pay. (Mediator, FMC)

Several professionals described the difficulty experienced by some parents in accepting the other parent’s desire to change the way they parent—for example, a desire to become a more “hands-on” parent. This difficulty is exacerbated by the consequences that changes such as these have on the amount of child support the contact parent pays and the resident parent receives. Many professionals commented that this is one of the more challenging issues encountered when working with separating parents in devising contact arrangements for their children.

In line with this, when parents debate the virtues of one contact arrangement over another, it was argued that it can be difficult to decipher whether:

they are talking about a contact arrangement that is supposedly in the best interests of the children [or whether] … this is about saying, “I don’t want you to have more time because it means less money to me,” or, “I am asking for more time because it means that I pay less money”. (Mediator, FMC)

Several professionals argued strongly that money, in the form of child support, plays a “big part” in contact disputes, causing considerable angst and conflict between former partners. One professional commented that at times there seems to be an inability on the part of some parents to make the connection that:

when they are talking about these money issues … what they are talking about at the end of the day is what their children will have to live on, and reconciling that “I’m worse off, and they’re worse off” … So trying to take from the other person isn’t necessarily the answer. (Mediator, FMC)

Another common theme was the degree to which negative attributions are made around a parent’s motivation for making some life changes; for example, deciding to be a more involved parent. Although briefly addressed under “Change of circumstances”, it is equally relevant here because of the interplay between the financial implications of such life changes and the negative attributions made as a result. This theme was evident in the words of one practitioner:

The link between the number of nights and the child support payable is a huge issue in mediation because you are counting and then you flip over the 109 [nights] and you go to a different formula and all of a sudden she says “you are doing it for the money” and he says “no, I am not”, and then you have got to try and unlink them … [There are] huge issues around that. (Mediator, RA)

Other professionals argued that the nature of the child support legislation exacerbated disputes in this area. One commented:

A lot of care disputes come down to the nature of the legislation in a lot of ways, too, because the formula is very inflexible, in that there are cut-off points … and often it’s one or two days that can make an enormous impact on the assessment, so people will try and get their court orders worded in such a way that it falls short, or just above, the threshold. It’s unfortunate that one or two days can be the source of so much contention, because in reality sometimes those couple of days equate to thousands of dollars one way or the other. (Professional, CSA)

This linkage of child support and contact in the minds of some separated parents was pointedly made by another professional.

Unfortunately, the children are often seen as commodities that have a big influence on the relative financial status of the parents and it can become a tug of war over the children for money reasons, particularly in the early stages of separation when there is still a lot of conflict between the parents. (Professional, CSA)

Read more here

Brisbane / Gold Coast / Sunshine Coast / Townsville

Child Support variation refused despite Payee’s withholding of children

Child Support variation refused despite Payee’s withholding of children


  1. The Applicant, whom has previously been assessed to pay child support in the amount of about $2,126.00 per month, as from 15 January 2007, seeks an order specifying that the annual rate of child support payable by him in respect of the children B (born in 2001) and C (born in 2004) be varied to “Nil” from 18 September 2014 onward.
  2. His application for this variation to the child support assessment relies on the fact that, on 18 September 2014, a Recovery Order was made, by which the children were to live with him. Despite this, and as a result of the Respondent’s deliberate actions, the Recovery Order was only executed on 25 July 2015.
  3. That is, whilst the terms of the Recovery Order provided that the Applicant was to have 100 per cent of the care of the children, the Respondent in fact retained 100 per cent of their care, in breach of the terms of the Recovery Order, until 25 July 2015.
  4. The Applicant’s evidence is to the effect that, despite the terms of the Recovery Order, he was required to continue to pay child support in the amount assessed until an Order, made on 6 May 2015, stayed the operation and implementation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) and also stayed the execution and collection of monies payable by him by virtue of the child support assessment pertaining to the children pending the hearing and final determination of his application for discharge and/or variation of the assessment.

Brief overview of relevant legislative provisions and their operation

  1. The parents of children have the primary duty to maintain those children.[1] The principal object of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) is to ensure that children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents.[2] Particular objects of the Act include ensuring that:
    1. the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children is determined according to their capacity to provide financial support and, in particular, that parents with a like capacity to provide financial support for their children should provide like amounts of financial support;[3] and
    2. the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children should be determined in accordance with the costs of the children;[4] and
    1. persons who provide ongoing daily care for children should be able to have the level of financial support to be provided for the children readily determined without the need to resort to Court proceedings;[5] and
    1. children share in changes in the standard of living of both their parents, whether or not they are living with both or either of them.[6]
  2. The relevant legislative provisions require that, in determining the annual rate of child support payable for a child (using the “basic formula”), the Registrar must:
    1. determine each parent’s child support income;[7] and then
    2. determine the parents’ combined child support income;[8] and then
    1. determine each parent’s income percentage;[9] and then
    1. determine each parent’s percentage of care for the child;[10] and then
    2. determine each parent’s cost percentage for the child;[11] and then
    3. determine each parent’s child support percentage for the child;[12] and then
    4. determine the costs of the child under s 55G and s 55H of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989(Cth); and then
    5. if a parent has a positive child support percentage: determine the annual rate of child support payable by the parent for the child for the day by using the formula: “Child support percentage x costs of the child”.
  3. Whilst it is probably obvious, for the purposes of the assessment of the amount of child support payable by a parent, the “percentage of care” is the mechanism used to take into account the amount of time that parent is responsible for providing care for the child.
  4. The Registrar usually determines the “percentage of care” based on the actual care that each parent has of the child.[13] However, where a parent is not complying with, relevantly, a Court order and an interim care decision is in effect, the Registrar may determine not to use the actual care a parent has of a child to determine the care percentage but, instead, and for an interim period, may make a determination of the percentage of care based on, relevantly, the terms of the Court order rather than on the actual care.[14] It seems to me to be incumbent on the parent seeking that the Registrar use the terms of the order, rather than the ‘actual care’, to take reasonable steps to have the terms of the order complied with.
  5. Once determined, a parent’s “percentage of care” is used to determine their “cost percentage” for the child and is also described by the use of one of five different terms prescribed within the Act. Relevantly, these include “regular care” (being the term used to describe a percentage of care of 14 per cent to less than 35 per cent), “primary care” (being the term used to describe a percentage of care of more than 65 per cent to 85 per cent) and “above primary care” (being the term used to describe a percentage of care of more than 86 per cent to 100 per cent).
  6. The relevance of these is that a parent who has a care percentage of less than 35 per cent for a child will not receive child support for that child; a parent who has more than 65 per cent care for a child will not be assessed to pay child support and a parent who has more than 86 per cent of care for a child is not required to pay child support.
  7. The terms of the September 2014 Recovery Order were such that, if implemented as intended when the Order was made, it is more likely than not that the Respondent’s “percentage of care” would have been less than 35 per cent and the Applicant’s “percentage of care” would have been no less than that which constitutes “primary care”.
  8. I think it also relevant to note that the provisions of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) enable the Registrar[15] to make an interim care determination in cases where there is a dispute between parties in relation to the care of a child. Such dispute exists where a care arrangement for the child (which relevantly includes a parenting order within the meaning of s 64B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) is in place and there is a departure from the terms of the same by one of the parties.
  9. If, for example, a parent is, without their consent, prevented from having a child in their care in accordance with the care arrangement (that is, a parenting order) and that parent takes reasonable steps to have the care arrangement complied with (for example, filing an application in Court seeking that the order be enforced), the Registrar may, for an interim period (being a period of up to 14 weeks or, in special circumstances,[16] 26 weeks), determine that parent’s care for the child on the basis of the care arrangement (relevantly, the terms of the parenting order) rather than actual care provided by that parent.
  10. Such determination may well mean that child support will be assessed in accordance with the care arrangement rather than in accordance with the manner in which the child is actually being cared for but, at the conclusion of the interim period, the parent’s care percentage will, from the day after the end of the interim period, again be determined according to that parent’s actual care of the child.


  1. Whilst the Applicant’s position in advancing the application is understandable in all the circumstances of this particular case, I have reached the conclusion that the evidence does not establish those matters about which, pursuant to s 117(1) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), I must be satisfied in order to grant the relief sought by the Applicant.
  2. It is clear that, from 18 September 2014 until 25 July 2015, the children were completely in the Respondent’s care and that she was the parent responsible for providing all of the ongoing daily care for them. That she provided this care in breach of the terms of the Recovery Order does not mean that it was not provided.
  3. Additionally, the fact that the Respondent was 100 per cent responsible for the children’s care during this period means that the Applicant was not called upon to meet their expenses in the way in which he would have been if the Respondent had complied with the terms of the Recovery Order and caused the children to live with him thereafter.
  4. For these short reasons, I refuse the Applicant’s application for an order varying the annual rate of child support payable by him from 18 September 2014 onward.

Read more here

Brisbane / Sunshine Coast / Gold Coast / Townsville

Costs – what is the price of a “just and equitable” resolution by a Court?

Costs – what is the price of a “just and equitable” resolution by a Court?

  1. Civil litigation in other superior courts of record must be conducted by the cardinal principal that it be as quick, inexpensive, and efficient as reasonably possible (see Part VB of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth); Part 6 Division 1 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)).
  2. Aside from an obligation to ensure proceedings under the Act are conducted without under formality and are not protracted (s 97(3)), there is no statutory counterpart governing the practice and procedure of this Court, though the Rules attempt to fill that gap. The main purpose of the Rules is to ensure that each case is resolved in a just and timely manner at reasonable cost to both the parties and the Court (r 1.04). The ways in which the main purpose should be promoted and achieved are particularised by the Rules (rr 1.06, 1.07), which importantly include attention to proportionality and the saving of cost, the responsibility for compliance with which falls upon both litigants and lawyers (r 1.08). Unfortunately, it seems scant regard was paid to those binding obligations by the parties and the solicitors in these proceedings.
  3. While the parties and their solicitors are not at fault for the proceedings taking three years to pass through the hands of two courts, it was still incumbent upon them to periodically re-assess the viability of their respective claims for relief during that time. Their dispute over parenting orders was ultimately resolved by final orders made with their consent, but not until the first trial in May 2017 before the Federal Circuit Court. Their continuing dispute over property adjustment orders necessitated a second trial before this Court in December 2017. As it transpired, the issues were not unduly complex, though the evidence was plentiful and the cross-examinations fastidious and lengthy.
  4. Rule 19.04 requires solicitors to give their clients written notice of the actual and prospective legal costs and disbursements they have incurred and will likely incur up to and including future Court events. The policy behind the rule is self-evident. It is designed to enable the parties’ evaluation of whether the money they have already spent and the extra money they are likely to continue spending in contesting the litigation is proportionate to the relief they seek.
  5. During the trial, counsel were asked to produce for the Court’s inspection the written notices given to the parties by their instructing solicitors, as r 19.04(3) provides. The notices revealed the parties’ combined expenditure on legal costs was estimated at $719,060, which expenditure may be contextualised by the following observations:(a) Their net assets were worth $2,619,018, so they spent the equivalent of 27.5 per cent of their assets in the litigation; (b) Even if their superannuation interests are added in, they still spent the equivalent of 20 per cent of their net assets and superannuation; (c) Prior to trial, the husband already owned 65 per cent of the parties’ net assets and superannuation. At trial, he sought 70 per cent, so he spent $385,181 trying to obtain the extra five per cent, worth only $181,773. So, even if he succeeded to the fullest extent of his application, he would still have been about $200,000 worse off. Eventually, the husband received 8.5 per cent less than his existing entitlement, so he spent $385,181 to lose $309,013: an overall loss of some $694,000. (d) Prior to trial, the wife owned 35 per cent of the parties’ net assets and superannuation. At trial, she sought 55 per cent, but only succeeded in obtaining 43.5 per cent, so she spent $333,879 to only acquire an extra 8.5 per cent, worth $309,013. Accordingly, after more than three years of litigation, she spent more than she gained and is now some $24,000 worse off.
  6. It must follow that, particularly in the husband’s case, if he did periodically review whether his expenditure on legal costs was worthwhile during the litigation, he made some ill-conceived decisions.
  7. Of course, parties are free to spend their capital and income on legal costs as they like, but few would wish to do so pointlessly. Lawyers are also obliged to act on instructions – even imprudent instructions given by misguided clients. Not uncommonly though, by reason of parties’ inexperience and unfamiliarity, their instructions are disconnected from the practical reality of their litigious predicament and what might or should be done to remedy it. Trite though it may be, the lawyers’ obligation is to eradicate any misconception and to ensure the instructions upon which they act advance the clients’ legal interests. Inevitably, expenditure on legal costs must be proportionate to the relief reasonably expected from the litigation, because unjustifiable fees corrupt the integrity of the legal system and undermine public confidence in it. Any scandalous waste of money on legal costs causes reputational damage for courts and the legal profession, not just the lawyers to whom the fees are paid.
  8. The husband sought costs against the wife[79] and the wife sought costs against the husband,[80] though the maintenance of those applications will presumably hinge upon the nature of the orders now pronounced. The question of costs will be reserved for 28 days to give the parties and their lawyers time to consider whether the dispute should be prolonged and yet another chapter needs to be written in this litigious story.

Read more here






Brisbane / Gold Coast / Sunshine Coast / Townsville

Relocation cases are determined according to children’s best interests

Relocation cases are determined according to children’s best interests

  1. Parenting proceedings involving relocation are to be determined in the same manner in which all parenting proceedings are determined. That is, by following the legislative framework set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) with a view to determining what orders, if any, are in the best interests of the children.
  2. In Zahawi & Rayne,[3] the Full Court noted:

47. All applications for parenting orders before the court involve a situation that, axiomatically, is not in the children’s best interests. What is best for children is that their parents co-parent by agreement and without conflict and as selflessly as circumstances reasonably allow. When parents are unable to agree, the parents’ proposals embraced in competing applications involve, again axiomatically, advantages and disadvantages for the children, each and all of which have ramifications for the children’s best interests. Concomitantly, Gummow and Callinan JJ said in U v U:

…The reality is that maternity and paternity always have an impact upon the wishes and mobility of parents: obligations both legal and moral, the latter sometimes lasting a lifetime, restrictive of personal choice and movement have been incurred.

48. “Relocation cases” are no different from other applications for parenting orders in that respect. Like all applications for parenting orders, an application to have the children live with a parent significantly geographically remote from the other parent is to be determined by the children’s best interests. However, the issues in a “relocation case” are, by reason of the proposed geographical separation of parents from their children, often significantly more acute and all the more so in cases of proposed international relocation. And, of course, that same factor will usually render more acute the burden or burdens to be borne by one parent or the other, including restrictions on their freedoms.

  1. In short, there are no special tests that apply to such cases and each case must therefore be determined on its own facts. While the Full Court noted that, as a result of the consequences of a proposed relocation, the burdens rendered on the parties may be more acute, it is not the case that the party desiring to relocate needs to establish “compelling reasons” for the relocation.[4]

Read more here






Brisbane/ Gold Coast/ Sunshine Coast / Townsville

Belief that the Court “got it wrong” is no defence to a contravention application

Belief that the Court “got it wrong” is no defence to a contravention application

  1. In the decision of Gaunt & Gaunt (1978) FLC 90-468 the Full Court considered the positon of a party who does not agree with the decision of the Trial Judge. There the Court held at [77,398] that:-

The essential question is this – can a party who does not agree with the Court’s decision about access, defy the order and then plead that in preventing access, his actions were based on his genuinely held belief that to allow the order to operate would be contrary to the welfare of the child?…To allow a party to arrogate to himself a supervening power to make an independent decision on that issue and to rely on that decision to escape from compliance with the Court’s order or from the consequences of non-compliance would undermine the purpose and intentions of the Act.

  1. The mother in this case refuses to enrol with the Family Contact Service due to her view that permitting the father to spend time with the children, even supervised time, would be contrary to the welfare of the children. Those matters were considered and determined by Cronin J. The appropriate manner in which to challenge the Orders is by appeal; the mother has not filed an appeal. The mother’s subjective view as to the rights and wrongs of Cronin J’s decision is not a basis upon which it could be said she has a reasonable excuse for contravening the final Orders. To permit the mother to maintain that position would undermine the provisions of the Act, the trial process so recently concluded and the final Orders made following the hearing.
  2. Having regard to the findings of Cronin J with respect to the allegations of sexual abuse and to the evidence of the mother given this day, I do not accept the mother’s submission that she has a reasonable excuse for contravening the order.
  1. However, in circumstances where the mother is currently undertaking psychological counselling to assist and support her in coming to terms with the outcome of the final hearing and the decision made by Cronin J, I am not satisfied that it can yet be said that her behaviour is such as to show a serious disregard of her obligations under the orders. I accept that the mother has been distressed by the outcome of the proceedings and that distress has likely influenced her conduct in refusing to comply with the final Orders that she enrol in the Family Contact Service. Nonetheless, if such behaviour continues, notwithstanding this proceeding and the findings contained herein, it is likely that any further application would result in such finding.

Read more here

Sunshine Coast

Litigation lending – do you need help with access to justice?

Litigation lending – Litigation funding – Access to Justice

Do you need financial assistance to afford legal representation in your case?

Freedom Law offers litigation lending to clients and non-clients who don’t have the upfront financial resources to pay legal costs such as lawyer’s fees, barrister’s fees and outlays such as court filing fees.

Many people face the prospect of having to represent themselves or to abandon their dispute when they don’t have the financial resources to pay the legal costs involved.

Litigation lending improves the prospects of cases winning by funding legal representation. It creates a level playing field between litigants to a dispute.

Lending for legal disputes isn’t limited to litigation (or cases). The lending can be applied to non-court based resolutions such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration and collaborative law.

Unlike many other providers, Freedom Law offers litigation lending for family law disputes as well as other areas of legal disputes.

Family law lending is particularly important in order to ensure that parenting arrangements are in the best interests of children, and property settlements are just and equitable between the parties to a relationship or marriage.

Applying for litigation lending is easy – simply contact Freedom Law ( or 1300 365 108) for an application form. Results of applications are notified within 14 days.

Freedom Law are here to help – just ask us how.

Brisbane / Gold Coast / Sunshine Coast / Townsville


Why hire Freedom Law for your family law needs?


Serving Southeast Queensland for 25+ Years

When it comes to finding the right family lawyer, you need someone who genuinely cares about your case. Choosing the right lawyer is an integral part of the family law process, and you can’t afford to risk the future or financial security of your family on the wrong representation. With Freedom Law, The Family Law Specialist on your side, you can trust that your case will be in safe hands.

Ready to learn more about our firm? Book a free confidential consultation 1300 365 108

Why You Should Consider Freedom Law, The Family Law  Specialist

  • We are 100% focused on family law – Family law is all we do, and we have an impressive record of results that demonstrates our capabilities.
  • Your lawyer will be there when you need them – We know that you want to have access to your lawyer. We are readily available to our clients.
  • You can get to know us in an initial consultation – Your choice of legal representation is too important to leave to chance. Get to know us before you make a decision.
  • You can work with an accredited family law specialist – When your future is uncertain, you can find comfort in knowing that you have a an accredited family law specialist on your side.
  • We are backed by 25+ years of legal experience – We have been handling cases in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates/Circuit Court systems for decades.

Freedom Law, The Family Law  Specialist

Is Ready to Fight for You

When you work with Freedom Law, The Family Law Specialist, you will have a lawyer with the skill to represent you no matter how complicated your case may be. Our team is highly experienced and lead by an accredited family law specialist.

We focus on family law because we care deeply about families and what happens to them, especially in times of change and transition. That concern means your lawyer will have the time and consideration to answer your calls and assist you in accomplishing your goals.

Your family deserves legal service that fits your needs – not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our in-depth knowledge of  family law and our extensive experience in negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation means that we have a wealth of knowledge to draw from in finding solutions that fit you.

Schedule Your Consultation: 1300 365 108

Regardless of the family law matter you currently face, you need a lawyer who will not only provide sensitive counsel, but fight for your best interests. You need a lawyer who gives you confidence, and one who will stand by you. This is what you will find at Freedom Law, The Family Law Specialist.

Call our office today on 1300 365 108 to learn more



Sunshine Coast / Brisbane / Gold Coast / Townsville