Jarrod Coburn - Practice Manager

We applaud ourselves in New Zealand at being a fair-minded and compassionate people, and in many cases this is true. In any society there will be a few rotten apples, we cannot avoid that. How we deal with those people and their victims is about the only way we as a society can make amends for their crimes.

Rape is rape. The age of consent is the age of consent. People - especially young people - have feelings, and they have rights. They have a right to live their lives in relative safety, free from the predatory actions of others who might hold power over them: whether that power be physical, financial, emotional or intellectual.

The discussion that the Roast Busters case has created has already started to move away from the core story, toward the culture of misogyny that underlies the Kiwi culture. Many remember 'good Kiwi blokes' like Barry Crump and Rob Muldoon. In their time they were seen as the kind of men who get things done with bits of number eight wire and elbow-grease, and damn the consequences: but they belong to a generation passed, a time when we as a society were a little less enlightened, a little less generous in spirit to the needs and feelings of all of our citizens.

We pulled our advertising from Radio Live today, after the comments made by John Tamihere and Willy Jackson around the Roast Busters situation. We did so because it is important to send a message to people who hold significant power over others - in this case the power of mass broadcast - that it is not okay to trivialise the predation of young people.

The young men at the centre of Roast Busters have undertaken actions based on their own personal values, not the values of society as a whole. It is time for others who have people in their thrall to reflect if their actions mirror society, or if they are merely a means to a selfish, ratings-driven end.

How Fast a Year Passes

Ebborn Law has come a long way in a short amount of time. From humble beginnings in 2012 we now have seven fulltime staff and are looking at the next big challenge for law firms across the country: fixed fees.

When Erin Ebborn first considered going into business for herself it was due to the looming threat of changes to legal aid funding.  Many people in other industries wouldn't understand how difficult it is to steer a company from an hourly rate paradigm to one predominantly based on a fixed fee, and thus why it is that law firms would find that move challenging.  But law is more than business, law is a profession: one that incorporates very high levels of integrity in every aspect.

Erin rightly (as it turned out) took a punt that - because she could design a business from scratch - she would be able to operate a law firm on a fixed fee basis.  Of course nobody gets anywhere without help, and over the past year the legal profession has been hugely supportive of this little law firm. Many of her colleagues have wished the very best for Erin and her team, and they contributed ideas, advice and excellent feedback.

Ebborn Law is now a leading provider of legal aid and one of the biggest specialist family law firms in Canterbury. This year it has been nominated for not one, but three, categories at the New Zealand Law Awards, along with legal luminaries such as Chen Palmer, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Duncan Cotterill, Lane Neave and Cavell Leitch Law.

Ebborn Law has come a long way in a year, but has a long journey ahead. The values of family, partnership and trust underpin the desire to provide the level of service someone could expect from a major law firm, along with the best possible advice and representation, and will be a touchstone for future growth throughout Canterbury and beyond.

Hundreds of same-sex couples across New Zealand and Australia are feverishly planning their big day together after a law came into force here redefining marriage came into effect.  Civil unions and de facto relationships have been a reality for a while now, but for those contemplating nuptials there two very important legal aspects to consider. Solicitors Amy Lake and Esther Jones discuss these.

On 19 August 2013 the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act came into force. This amendment enables gay and lesbian couples to marry in New Zealand. Whilst this is an exciting time for many, it is important to take the time to consider the legal ramifications of any long-term or serious relationship. In particular, consideration needs to be made for the division of property, should the relationship break down, and what will happen in the event of a death of one or both parties. Not wanting to put a cloud over your big day... but you'll be a lot happier if you do something now, rather than leave things to chance later.

Relationship Property

The law in New Zealand states when a marriage, de facto relationship or civil union ends, there is a presumption of equal sharing in all “relationship property” and debt. The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 defines “relationship property” as all property acquired for or during the relationship. This also includes property acquired by one party prior to the relationship commencing, if it is used for the benefit of the relationship. The definition further states that “relationship property” includes the family home, whenever it is acquired. The family home is generally defined as the main residence for the couple or family during the relationship.

In New Zealand it is possible to contract out from the presumption of equal sharing in all relationship property and debt. A contracting out agreement (also known as a pre-nuptial agreement) protects each spouse’s individual interests in property. Such an agreement specifies the ownership and entitlements of each party in the property and debt. Although a contracting out agreement can be obtained at any point during the relationship, it is recommended that an agreement is entered into as early as possible.

A contracting out agreement is recommended when:

• One party solely owns the family home; or

• There has been a previous relationship for one or both parties, resulting in significant property for one party; or

• There are children from a previous relationship and their interest or entitlement needs to be protected; or
• One party has significant debt; or
• You simply do not want to share assets and debt equally.

Death

When a couple gets married any previous wills in force for either party are instantly revoked unless the parties’ wills were specifically made in contemplation of marriage. This means that unless a new will is made, if a party dies they are intestate and their property will be divided according to the Administration Act 1969.

In Summary

Go forth and enjoy! This is a day to celebrate for many New Zealanders and there will be a new energy and enthusiasm for marriage across the country. Just remember to protect what you have worked hard at your whole life.

Shaking Up the Family Court
Radio New Zealand "Insight" Programme
Sunday 21 July

Click here (or cut and paste the link below) to hear Radio New Zealand's court reporter Anne Marie May discuss the winners and losers of proposed Family Court changes with Justice Minister Judith Collins.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2562718/insight-for-21-july-2013-shaking-up-the-family-court

I have specialised as a family lawyer for 14 years. For the last four years I have been approved to represent children in the Family Court. I am currently on the sub-committee  of the Family Law Section about the “Children Young Persons and their Families Act” and its application. I have previously been on the Women’s Consultative Group of the New Zealand Law Society. In a voluntary capacity I have been (or still am) on governance boards about emergency accommodation for women, initiatives for youth and sexual abuse counselling.

I would like to speak to my submission before the Select Committee. My experience provides a solid foundation to my submissions.

In principle, I support a family law system that offers alternative dispute resolution, is fast and easy to use, child-focussed and protects people’s privacy, dignity and safety. However I am not convinced that the proposals in the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill achieve this. I oppose some of the reforms proposed by the Bill and support others.

I want to also note that due to the nature of the people who are my clients and the strict confidentiality and delicacy of Family Court matters, it has been challenging to encourage the people most affected by these proposed changes to speak on their own behalf. I have, however, consulted with clients in writing this submission.

I am particularly concerned about the restrictions on assistance from a lawyer. I believe this will result in an uneven playing field and create a barrier to accessing to justice for people who:

• Have been subjected to family violence, especially psychological violence which is often less easily identified
• Have English as a second language or have a  cultural background that makes navigating the New Zealand Court system particularly challenging
• Have a mental health difficulty
• Have limited literacy
• Are hearing or vision impaired
• Are of a young age
• Are socially disenfranchised
• Are generally shy, self-conscious or inarticulate

I am concerned that limiting the appointment of a Lawyer for the Child will mean that children are not adequately represented or heard. Lawyer for the Child also assist with early dispute resolution through their advocacy for the child and I am concerned this opportunity might be lost if Lawyer for the Child is appointed later in the court case rather than at an earlier stage.

Finally, I am concerned that the cost associated with the Family Dispute Resolution Service will create a hurdle to accessing justice for those who need it most, and at the very least contribute to inequity between parties of different means.

By Erin Ebborn, Managing Director

An article on Stuff (also published in the Sunday Star Times on 23 December 2012) reports the Family Court is inserting "gagging orders" into court orders, thus preventing participants from posting complaints about their former partners on social media websites. I have been a family lawyer for almost 14 years and I have never seen a condition in a Parenting Order specifically “gagging” a parent.

The issues the Family Court deals with are very personal to the participants. There are many different times when information is confidential. For example:

• What is discussed at counselling sessions, mediation conferences and Family Group Conferences. This is so that participants can speak freely and honestly without worrying that what they say is going to be used in Court.
• What is said in social work or psychology reports because it is private to the people involved.
• Making offers on a “without prejudice” basis. This is so we can make settlement proposals and negotiate without compromising the position we would otherwise be advancing in litigation.
• There are also restrictions on what can be published by the media and how Judges’ decisions can be published. If you look at written judgements the names of the parties are often changed to protect their privacy.

Therefore we shouldn’t be surprised that there are further attempts to keep personal information private particularly when at the centre of the conflict is children.

The difficulty with social media is that it can be accessed quickly, typed without thought or in the heat of the moment, distributed to a potentially very wide audience and then be difficult to contain after publication. People commenting on Facebook or Twitter about their separation and their ex is very common. I have also seen the publication of parts of affidavits on Facebook (documents which are usually kept confidential). The outcome of such comments is rarely helpful to the resolution of the proceedings. It means that friends or family jump on board the band-wagon adding their 2c worth and my view is that the result is usually a heightening of conflict or bitterness.

Parents who separate seem to forget that their parental relationship is going to remain even when their personal one has finished.  Most children can cope with their parents separating. What they struggle with is the conflict. In my role as Lawyer for the Child it is very common for the children’s wishes to be for Mum and Dad to stop fighting and be nice to each other. Sometimes the best common sense is coming from the children.

I haven’t seen or used “gagging” clauses in Parenting Orders. But would I? I expect so. I think there is a time and a place for them. My question is how successful such a clause will be.

Source: www.stuff.co.nz

A non-profit legal advice website, called LawSpot, will allow members of the public free access to lawyers to submit questions.

About 50 lawyers from firms in the Wellington region are volunteering to answer questions that are submitted from the public. The questions are screened by volunteer law students or recent graduates who remove any identifying information, making sure questions are anonymous to the lawyers responding.

The website will featurea searchable database of previous questions so users can look for similar questions and see how the answer applied to their own situation.

Citizens Advice Bureau already offers assistance and the Community Law website publishes online copies of laws so people can check what their rights are.  However, LawSpot aims to be highly accessible and easily understood by people. There are plans to offer the service in Pacific, Maori, Chinese and other languages as new immigrants or people who have English as a second language are often particularly vulnerable to not understanding New Zealand law.