Evaluating the work of Australia's Family Relationship Centres: Evidence from the first 5 years

Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) have been described as a centerpiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms. This paper places these centres in the larger context of the reforms and their commitment to providing community‐based family services in the family law area. The paper also examines the empirical evidence regarding FRCs' use and effectiveness. It notes that while the objectives and intentions of FRCs place considerable emphasis on strengthening family relationships and assisting families to stay together, the centres themselves have only a modest level of direct involvement with intact families. FRCs tend to have strong links with other community‐based family services, many of whom are more engaged with intact families; but it is difficult to gauge their effectiveness in this area. Most FRCs' direct services are aimed at separating families and most of that work involves family dispute resolution (family mediation) and associated services such as screening and assessment and the provision of relevant information. A substantial majority of clients who attend FDR at an FRC reach agreement about their parenting arrangements either at FDR or subsequent to attending FDR. These agreements also tend to hold up in the medium term. A majority of parents believe that at FDR, the child(ren)'s needs were taken into account; the parenting agreement worked for the child(ren); and the parenting agreement worked for them. A substantial proportion of FRC clients come from families that have experienced family violence or other dysfunctional behaviours, and such behaviours reduce the chances of resolving parenting disputes. The paper concludes by suggesting that having been created mainly as a default alternative to legal interventions and court processes, it is likely that a major future strength of FRCs will lie in their emerging capacity to work constructively not only with other relationship services and networks, but with family lawyers and the courts.     

Challenging Australia's "closed" model of neonatal care: the need for reform following Re baby D (No 2)

The withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment to compromised newborns is a subject of controversy in countries where there is now highly advanced neonatal care to keep such newborns alive. The topic has generated comparatively less debate in Australia, where case law is sparse and parents and clinicians themselves make decisions regarding the cessation of care, largely free from extemal oversight. The recent case of Re Baby D (No 2) [2011] FamCA 176 endorses this "closed" approach to neonatal decision-making. This article critically discusses some of its implications and makes suggestions for reform to ensure meaningful oversight of decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment. The authors argue that the judgment fails to address some fundamental issues, such as ensuring that those with the responsibility to make decisions are doing so on a "best interests" basis. This is important because, in a society where disability remains stigmatised and poorly understood, there is no opportunity under the approach adopted in Baby D to guarantee adequate protection of the rights of individuals born with physical or intellectual impairments.     

Post-conviction DNA testing: the UK's first 'exoneration' case?

The routine incorporation of forensic DNA profiling into the criminal justice systems of the United Kingdom has been widely promoted as a device for improving the quality of investigative and prosecutorial processes. From its first uses in the 1980s, in cases of serious crime, to the now daily collection, analysis and comparison of genetic samples in the National DNA Database, DNA profiling has become a standard instrument of policing and a powerful evidential resource for prosecutors. However, the use of post-conviction DNA testing has, until recently, been uncommon in the United Kingdom. This paper explores the first case, in England, of the contribution of DNA profiling to a successful appeal against conviction by an imprisoned offender. Analysis of the details of this case is used to emphasise the ways in which novel forms of scientific evidence remain subject to traditional and heterogeneous tests of relevance and credibility.     

禁诉令的终结？——评欧盟法院就the “FRONT COMOR”案的裁决

从欧盟就＂FRONT COMOR＂轮碰撞损害代位求偿纠纷案裁决出发,分析英国法院禁诉令的起源、发展,以及欧盟法院裁决否定英国在欧盟范围内签发禁诉令的权力所引起的争议,并就中国的应对提出一些相应的措施。     

UK: Court of Appeal orders retrial in UK's first HIV criminal transmission case

On 5 May 2004, the UK Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, granted Mohammed Dica's appeal against his October 2003 conviction on two counts of causing grievous bodily harm for reckless transmission of HIV. The court ordered a retrial after determining that the trial judge was wrong to not allow the defendant to present information that the victims had known about his condition and had consented to the risk.