These changes form part of a nationwide effort to prevent serious financial crime, including fraud and money laundering.  While the new requirements affect how law practices operate behind the scenes, our focus remains the same: providing clear, practical and trusted legal advice.

Why are these changes happening?

Australia is updating its laws to align with international standards and to close gaps that criminals can exploit. Regulators have identified that certain professional services, including some legal services, can be misused for illegal activity if appropriate checks are not in place.

The new laws are designed to strengthen safeguards across the legal and financial system.

Will this affect all legal work?

No. The new requirements apply only to certain higher‑risk legal services, such as:

• buying or selling property
• setting up companies or trusts
• managing client funds
• some commercial and financial transactions

Many areas of legal work, including litigation and court‑based matters, are not affected.

What might clients notice?

For some matters, we may need to:

• request additional identification documents
• ask questions about the nature or purpose of a transaction
• carry out ongoing checks during longer‑running matters

These steps are now required by law and are similar to the checks clients may already be familiar with when dealing with banks or other financial institutions.

What are we doing to prepare?

Dobson Mitchell Allport is actively preparing for these changes by:

• reviewing our internal systems and processes
• training our staff on the new requirements
• ensuring compliance is handled efficiently and respectfully

Our aim is to make this transition as smooth as possible for our clients, with minimal disruption to your legal matters.

Need more information?

If you have questions about how these changes may affect your matter, we are happy to discuss them with you.  Please feel free to speak with your lawyer or contact our office.

The post New Anti‑Money Laundering Laws for Law Firms: What Clients Need to Know appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

Some couples who separate may not feel the need to get divorced. However, remaining legally married to your former spouse can have consequences later, even if you have re-partnered.

Estate Planning

If you do not amend your will post‑separation to exclude your former spouse and you remain legally married, your estate may still pass to your former spouse in accordance with the terms of your last valid will. Any new will that you make post-separation but prior to divorce should be made in contemplation of your divorce as to not revoke your will once that divorce is finalised.

If you pass away without a valid will in place and you remain legally married, the laws of intestacy will apply. This means your estate may be distributed between your former spouse and any children you have. If you do not have children, your former spouse may be entitled to your estate in full.

Superannuation

If you have made a binding death benefit nomination with your superannuation fund, you will need to make a new nomination.

As noted above, if you were to pass away, your former spouse may be entitled to receive your superannuation entitlements as a nominated beneficiary.

You can change your nominated beneficiary by contacting your superannuation fund and completing the required paperwork.

Marriage

You cannot re‑marry until you are legally divorced from your former spouse.

It can take several months for a divorce application to be prepared, served (if required), and heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“the Court”).

Importantly, a divorce is not finalised until one month and one day after it is granted by the Court.

I want to get a divorce, but I need help!

The Family & Relationship Law team at Dobson Mitchell Allport offers a fixed‑fee divorce service, giving you certainty and peace of mind when it comes to divorce‑related legal fees.

Our fixed‑fee divorce service includes:

• An initial consultation
• Preparation of your Application for Divorce
• Meeting with you to sign the documents
• Serving your spouse or their solicitor (if a process server is not required)
• Filing your Application with the Court
• Attendance at the Court hearing and reporting the outcome to you
• If your divorce is granted, emailing or posting a copy of your Divorce Order to you

If this is something you are navigating, our experienced team of Family Lawyers can help. To find out more, contact our team at familylaw@doma.com.au.

Our services are complemented by our experienced team of Wills & Estates Lawyers.

The post Thinking about getting a divorce? Here is what you need to know. appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The historic approach

Prior to May 2024, the principles arising from the case of Rice and Asplund were commonly referred to when determining a reconsideration of final parenting orders.

These principles ensured regard was had as to:

1. Whether there had been a substantial and significant/sufficient change in circumstances since the making of the final parenting orders, and
2. If the final parenting orders remained in the child’s best interests (including considering the consequences of exposing a child to multiple Court proceedings).

The new law in May 2024

Changes to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in May 2024, introduced a new section: s65DAAA which specifically addresses the reconsideration of final parenting orders.

This change provides that the Court must not reconsider final parenting orders unless:

1. The Court has considered whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the final parenting orders were made, and
2. That the Court is satisfied that, in all circumstances, it is in the best interest of the child for the final parenting orders to be reconsidered.

The section then identifies the factors for the Court to consider when determining whether to reconsider final parenting orders. They include:

1. The best interests of the child
2. The reasons for the final parenting orders and the material on which they were based
3. Whether there is material available at the time of the reconsideration which was unavailable when the final parenting orders were made
4. The likelihood of the Court making new parenting orders that affect the operation of the final parenting orders in a significant way, and/or
5. Any potential benefit, or detriment, to the child that might result from reconsidering the final parenting orders.

The amendments were considered throughout 2024 in three matters before the Court: Whitehill & Talaska [2024] FedCFamC2F 768, Farnworth & Farnworth [2024] FedCFamC2F 1094, and Rasheem & Rasheem [2024] FEdCFamC1F.

All three of these matters identified that whilst the introduction of section 65DAAA was intended to codify the Rice and Asplund rule, the section operated in a substantially different way to the rule. These decisions ruled that the effect of the legislation is that the Court only needs to “consider” whether a significant change in circumstances has occurred, deviating from the mandate that Rice and Asplund placed on this finding.

This meant that whilst it is mandatory for the Court to consider whether there had been a sufficient or significant change in circumstances, a change in circumstances was not seen as a prerequisite to allow a reconsideration of final parenting orders. Instead, the other factors could inform whether any reconsideration can occur, even if the change in circumstances had not occurred.

Radecki & Radecki

On 19 December 2024, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) delivered its judgment in Radecki & Radecki. This was a landmark decision that gave guidance on the interpretation and application of the amendments relating to the reconsideration of final parenting orders.

Radecki clarified how courts should interpret section 65DAAA and reaffirmed the principles from Rice and Asplund. The Court rejecting a literal interpretation of the word “consider”, stating that it conflicts with the statute’s purpose. Instead, the Court held that judges must evaluate the evidence and make findings of fact as to what changes in circumstances, if any, there have been since the making of the parenting orders.

If no change is found, then the matter ends. However, if a positive finding of change in circumstances is made, the Court must then assess the best interests of the child using section 60CC factors and criteria found in section 65DAAA(2).

Lehtinen & Lehtinen

The April 2025 appeal of Lehtinen & Lehtinen reinforces that a Rice and Asplund determination cannot be appealed, and that Radecki & Radecki is good law.

The respondent in this matter argued that Radecki ought not to be followed due to a perceived softening in the approach, submitting that section 65DAAA does not require changed circumstances and merely calls for a consideration of whether circumstances have changed or not.

His Honour rejected this view, stating that section 65DAAA incorporates the Rice and Asplund principle into legislation. This means the Court must:

• contemplate the evidence, and
• make a factual finding on whether a change in circumstances has occurred before reconsidering final parenting orders.

In summary, while early decisions of the Court after the introduction of s65DAAA suggested that the Rice and Asplund test no longer applies, the more recent and superior decisions from Division 1 of the Court indicate that the test, now enshrined in s65DAAA still requires a significant change of circumstances to be proven in order for the Court to reconsider final parenting orders.

Approaches to a reconsideration of final parenting orders require specialist assistance. If you are looking to vary final parenting orders, please contact Dobson Mitchell Allport for advice.

The post When Can the Court reconsider Final Parenting Orders? appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

Key changes in this amendment relevant to family violence are:

Family violence is a relevant factor when deciding property settlements and spousal maintenance

This amendment will insert sections into the Family Law Act, requiring a Court to consider the impact of any family violence, economic or financial abuse when deciding on a property settlement or the payment of spousal maintenance.

Particularly, the Court will need to consider:

1. whether family violence has affected a partner’s ability to contribute financially or non-financially during the relationship, and
2. whether family violence will have an impact on a partner’s current and future circumstances.

Prior to these changes, the consideration of family violence in property settlements has only occurred in very narrow circumstances, meaning that is has rarely impacted outcomes. These changes represent a significant change in property matters where family violence occurs.

The list of examples of family violence will be expanded

The examples of economic and financial abuse that are set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) will now be expanded to include a broader range of coercive and controlling behaviours. These behaviours include;

1. controlling a party’s assets or money, including superannuation,
2. using deception or pressure to force a partner to take on debts,
3. interfering with a parties’ work, such as
   1. sabotaging job opportunities, and
   1. preventing a party from pursuing work or education.
4. Using pressure or deception to manipulate a party in relation to government payments,
5. dictating how much a party can spend on necessities,
6. denying a party access to financial resources for necessities,
7. cutting a party off financially as a form of punishment,
8. pressuring a party to enter into legal contracts or change their Will,
9. withholding child support as a means of pressure or punishment of a party,
10. in relation to dowries:
    1. forcing a person to provide money or assets as a dowry, and
    1. concealing actions of agreements in relation to a dowry.

These amendments within the Family Law Act confirm that family violence is a common occurrence in families dealt with by the courts when considering property settlement entitlements under the Family Law Act. These amendments ensuring that more victims of family violence will seek an adjustment in their favour for the effects of the family violence they have experienced.

Importantly, the changes do not apply to existing final orders. If you have existing final orders for property, you should continue to follow them. The changes come into effect after 10 June 2025 and will apply to all new and existing proceedings (if your Final Hearing has not yet commenced).

Are you separating and require a property settlement? We recommend speaking to one of our experienced family lawyers to gain an understanding of how the changes may impact you. You can get started here: familylaw@doma.com.au.

The post Family Law Amendment Act 2024 – Property settlements, family violence, contributions and the court’s approach appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

These factors have been added on to a new section 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This new section shall contain the factors from the existing section 75(2) that solely deals with maintenance.  Section 75(2) maintenance factors shall now be renamed as “considerations relating to current and future circumstances” to avoid any confusion.

The new section 79(5) additions are explained below:

Effect of family violence

• The Court will need to consider the effect of any family violence, to which one party to the marriage has subjected or exposed the other party, on the current and future circumstances of the other party, including on any of the matters mentioned elsewhere in s79(5)

Wastage

• When considering each party’s contributions, the Court will now need to consider whether one person has intentionally or recklessly lost or given away assets or financial resources, during or after the relationship.

Liabilities

• The Court will need to consider the natures of the liabilities, the circumstances that brought around those liabilities and the impact on those liabilities on the financial future of the parties.

Housing needs

• The Court will need to give additional consideration to the need for either party to provide appropriate housing for a child of the marriage who has not attained 18 years of age.

Alteration of interests

• The Court shall consider the extent to which an alteration of the interests of the parties to the marriage in any property would enable a party to undertake education or establish a business or otherwise obtain an adequate income.

Importantly, the changes do not apply to existing final orders. If you have existing final orders for property, you should continue to follow them. The changes come into effect after 10 June 2025 and will apply to all new and existing proceedings (if your Final Hearing has not yet commenced).

Are you separating and require a property settlement? We recommend speaking to one of our experienced family lawyers to gain an understanding of how the changes may impact you. You can get started here.

The post New Family Law Changes: Wastage, Liabilities, and Housing Needs Now Key to Property Settlements appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

A companion animal (family pet) is an animal kept by the parties (jointly or separately) to a marriage or a de facto relationship for the purpose of companionship.

The Court, in making an Order, must consider a range of factors that only apply in relation to family pets. Among other things, this may include:

• Any cruelty or abuse towards the animal, including threatening behaviour as a form of family violence
• The attachment of each party, or children of the relationship to the family pets
• The ability for each party to provide care to the animal in the future
• The extent to which each party cared for, and paid for the maintenance of, the animal

The Court can order that one party retain an animal or that it be sold, but it cannot make an order for shared ownership of an animal. Since the changes haven’t come into effect, we are yet to see how the Court will apply the new legislation.

There are some classes of animals that will be excluded under this framework, including:

• Assistance animals within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act
• Animals kept as part of a business
• Animals kept for agricultural purposes
• Animals kept for use in laboratory tests or experiments

Importantly, the changes do not apply to existing final orders. If you have existing final orders for property, you should continue to follow them. The changes do not come into effect until 10 June 2025 and will apply to all new and existing proceedings (if your Final Hearing has not yet commenced).

Are you separating and have a pet to consider? We recommend speaking to one of our experienced family lawyers to gain an understanding of how the changes may impact you. You can get started here: familylaw@doma.com.au.

The post Pets and Family Law: appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

It is known that there is a threshold test for spousal maintenance which determines whether one party is entitled to receive spousal maintenance from the other. The two limbs of the test are, need and capacity. To satisfy there is a need, the applicant must demonstrate that they are unable to support themselves to the extent to which they previously enjoyed adequately. This could be due to various reasons, such as physical or mental incapacity, inability to gain employment, or any other adequate reason. The second limb, capacity requires analysis of the respondent’s financial ability to pay the spousal maintenance, meaning that the person the maintenance is being sought from, must be reasonably able to provide financial support for the person who is seeking spousal maintenance.  

When determining spousal maintenance, section 72(2)(m) of the Family Law Act 1975 considers the financial circumstances of either party if they are cohabitating with another person.

Understanding this element not only provides clarity for those currently undergoing this process but also sheds light on the broader legal principles that underpin family law.

A relatively recent case which demonstrates the significant impact this factor has on the court’s rulings is Stamatou v Stamatou [2022] FEDCFAMC1F 241.

In Stamatou, the court examined the financial circumstances of the husband, who was cohabitating with another person. The husband failed to make proper financial disclosures, which revealed that his partner had significant financial resources and support. This lack of transparency led the court to infer that the husband’s financial situation was far more favourable than he had presented. As a result of the significant advance of the husband’s financial circumstances due to his cohabitation, the court decided that an adjustment should be made in the wife’s favour under section 72(2)(m) of the Family Law Act 1975.

The court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of full financial disclosure in family law proceedings. It highlights that cohabitation with a new partner, who has substantial financial resources, can significantly impact spousal maintenance decisions. The court will consider the financial benefits derived from such cohabitation and may adjust maintenance orders accordingly to ensure a just and equitable outcome for both parties.

The post SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – FINANCIAL RESOURCES FROM NEW PARTNER appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The Federal Government has passed laws to amend the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘FLA’). The purpose of the amendments is to create a safer and more streamlined system for separating couples.

Importantly, if you already have financial or property orders in place, you should continue to follow those Court orders. However, these changes will apply to all new and existing proceedings. The amendments can be categorised into two groups:

First Group (taken effect from 11 December 2024) – 

Commonwealth Information Orders 

There have been changes to the Commonwealth Information Orders framework. This is where the location of a child is unknown, and the Court orders a one-off search or periodic searches for information relating to that child. This can be no more than once every three months and for no further back than two years, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The changes also define persons related to a child to include anyone biologically related and anyone who has a connection with the child, for the purposes of any information a government department may have in regard to actual or threatened family violence. 

Jurisdiction

The amendments seek to remove any uncertainty around the jurisdiction of state or territory courts when exercising family law jurisdiction. This change embeds the policy intent and helps with streamlining the family law process.

Low Rate Cap and Separation Declarations 

The amendments have removed the low rate cap amount for superannuation balances. It also removes the requirement for separating couples to make a separation declaration for superannuation splits. Instead, the parties only need to state that they were married, or in a de facto relationship, but are separated at the time of making the declaration. 

Second Group (effective from 10 June 2025) – 

Property 

The amendments will require the Court to consider the effect of material wastage by a party when determining property settlements, codifying important case law on the topic. This is where a person intentionally or recklessly lessens the assets that would otherwise be available for distribution between the parties.  

They will also adapt the existing framework for less adversarial trials (‘LATs’) so that they extend to certain property or other non-child related proceedings. LATs are less formal, allowing the Court to take an active role in managing the proceedings.

Disclosure Obligations

The duty of disclosure is already reflected in the Family Law Rules. However, these amendments seek to codify these disclosure obligations. This simply means that each party will be required, under the FLA, to provide full and frank disclosure of their financial circumstances. The aim of this amendment is to encourage separating couples to use alternative dispute resolution methods, which are often more timely and cost effective.

Divorce

The changes will allow the Court to determine divorces, regardless of whether there are children under the age of 18 years old, without the need for an appearance. This reduces the burden on separating couples to attend the hearing, whilst still ensuring the best interests of the children are upheld. 

Cost Orders

The amendments alter the cost provisions within the FLA. It provides more certainty around the Court’s power in making cost orders (in other words, where one party is ordered to pay the legal costs of another). Furthermore, it clarifies the circumstances in which the Court may order party to contribute to the cost of an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

If you need to speak to our team of experienced family lawyers, you can do so by getting started here: https://doma.settify.com.au/landing?referral=articletextlink

The post Family Law Amendment Act 2024 – the key changes explained appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

A person who is appointed under a will to become a child’s guardian can immediately become the physical carer to the child, however it may be difficult for the guardian to give the necessary consents or to have the required authority to be able to make decisions on the child’s behalf.

In such a case, the parent’s Will is the only evidence of the guardianship appointment. A problem arises when an institution doesn’t readily accept a Will as evidence of guardianship. We have recently seen this happen for private health insurance requests and passport applications.

Currently, the only other option for procuring evidence of guardianship is for guardians to apply for parenting orders in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Other than parents of the child, these applications can be made by grandparents and persons interested in the welfare and care of the child (“interested persons”).

Parenting orders can grant a guardian decision making responsibility for and care for the child. These orders are set out in a sealed court document, which can be used to prove the guardian’s legal position.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) defines decision making responsibility as:

the right of a person to make decisions about major events in a child’s life, such as education, living arrangements, and medical treatment.

If the guardian is a grandparent or relative

Any person can apply for a parenting order to obtain legal guardianship of a child, provided that they are an interested person. This could include someone who is not a relative of the child but who has a close relationship with the child or one or both of the child’s parents. If a parent has executed a will naming a person as the guardian for the child, that person would qualify as an interested person.

However, if the person applying for a parenting order is not a relative of the child, there are additional protocols which must be followed before the Court can make a parenting order.

A relative includes the following under section 4(1) of the Act;

• Step parent;
• Sibling of the child, including half and step;
• Grandparent;
• Uncle or aunt of the child;
• Nephew or niece of the child; and
• Cousin of the child.

Guardians who are grandparents or relatives of the child may apply for parenting orders under section 65C of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”). If the legal guardian is seeking the following parenting orders then they may apply via a consent application, provided that there are no other parties who oppose the making of the Orders (such as another relative or interested person):

1. that the child lives with the legal guardian; and/or
2. that the legal guardian be allocated decision making responsibility.

If the guardians is not a relative

If the guardian is not a grandparent or relative of the child, but they are seeking Orders that the child lives with them and/or that the be granted decision making responsibility for the child, then the guardian will need to apply to the Court under section 65G of the Act as ‘non-parents’ via an initiating application. This is required even when there are no parties in opposition to the Orders being made. In this instance, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires that the parties must attend a conference with a Family Consultant to discuss the matter to be determined by the proposed order. Alternatively, the Court must be satisfied that there are circumstances that make it appropriate to make the proposed order even though the parties have not met with a Family Consultant.

If you would like further information about guardianship for children, contact our Family Law team.

The post Applying for parenting orders as a guardian of a child appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

A person who is appointed under a will to become a child’s guardian can immediately become the physical carer to the child, however it may be difficult for the guardian to give the necessary consents or to have the required authority to be able to make decisions on the child’s behalf.

In such a case, the parent’s Will is the only evidence of the guardianship appointment. A problem arises when an institution doesn’t readily accept a Will as evidence of guardianship. We have recently seen this happen for private health insurance requests and passport applications.

Currently, the only other option for procuring evidence of guardianship is for guardians to apply for parenting orders in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Other than parents of the child, these applications can be made by grandparents and persons interested in the welfare and care of the child (“interested persons”).

Parenting orders can grant a guardian decision making responsibility for and care for the child. These orders are set out in a sealed court document, which can be used to prove the guardian’s legal position.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) defines decision making responsibility as:

the right of a person to make decisions about major events in a child’s life, such as education, living arrangements, and medical treatment.

If the guardian is a grandparent or relative

Any person can apply for a parenting order to obtain legal guardianship of a child, provided that they are an interested person. This could include someone who is not a relative of the child but who has a close relationship with the child or one or both of the child’s parents. If a parent has executed a will naming a person as the guardian for the child, that person would qualify as an interested person.

However, if the person applying for a parenting order is not a relative of the child, there are additional protocols which must be followed before the Court can make a parenting order.

A relative includes the following under section 4(1) of the Act;

• Step parent;
• Sibling of the child, including half and step;
• Grandparent;
• Uncle or aunt of the child;
• Nephew or niece of the child; and
• Cousin of the child.

Guardians who are grandparents or relatives of the child may apply for parenting orders under section 65C of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”). If the legal guardian is seeking following parenting orders then they may apply via a consent application, provided that there are no other parties who oppose the making of the Orders (such as another relative or interested person):

1. that the child lives with the legal guardian; and/or
2. that the legal guardian be allocated decision making responsibility.

If the guardians is not a relative

If the guardian is not a grandparent or relative of the child, but they are seeking Orders that the child lives with them and/or that the be granted decision making responsibility for the child, then the guardian will need to apply to the Court under section 65G of the Act as ‘non-parents’ via an initiating application. This is required even when there are no parties in opposition to the Orders being made. In this instance, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires that the parties must attend a conference with a Family Consultant to discuss the matter to be determined by the proposed order. Alternatively, the Court must be satisfied that there are circumstances that make it appropriate to make the proposed order even though the parties have not met with a Family Consultant.

If you would like further information about guardianship for children, contact our Family Law team.

The post Applying for parenting orders as a guardian of a child appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.