000			03118nam a22003257a 4500
999			_c5929 _d5929
005			20250625151454.0
008			180801s2018 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a978-1-76016-187-3 (Online)
020			_a978-1-76016-187-3 (Online)
040			_aAFVC
100			_aCarson, Rachel _95606
245			_aDirect cross‑examination in family law matters : _bincidence and context of direct cross‑examination involving self-represented litigants _cRachel Carson, Lexia Qu, John de Maio and Dinika Roopani
260			_aMelbourne, Vic : _bAustralian Institute of Family Studies, _c2018
300			_aelectronic document (70 pages) ; PDF file ; HTML version available
520			_aThis report sets out findings from the Direct Cross-examination in Family Law Matters project, which was commissioned and funded by the Australian Government, Attorney-General's Department. The project explores quantitative and qualitative data relevant to direct cross-examination involving self-represented litigants in family law matters, derived from court files and audio and transcripts of proceedings, collected from the Family Court of Australia (FCoA) and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCoA), together with an analysis of relevant unreported judgments of the Family Court of Western Australia (FCoWA). The data analyses were undertaken to explore: - the extent to which direct cross-examination was a feature of matters involving self-represented litigants in families characterised by alleged or substantiated family violence; and - the factual and legal context characterising these family law matters as compared to those matters where direct cross-examination involving self-represented litigants did not take place. The analyses highlight that the most common form of direct cross-examination was one where fathers directly cross-examined the mother only.(1) The data also show that there were higher rates of allegations of family violence against both parties in court files where direct cross-examination occurred. The data suggest that specific safeguards were typically not in place when direct cross-examination was permitted. If specific safeguards were in place, the most common forms involved judicial officers actively intervening to relay questions. A description of the sample characteristics and key findings from the quantitative analysis of the court files are summarised below. (Executive summary). Record #5929
650			_9252 _aFAMILY VIOLENCE
650			_aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650			_aFAMILY COURT _9241
650			_aFAMILY LAW _9244
650			_aFATHERS _9254
650			_aJUSTICE _9333
650			_aMOTHERS _9392
651		4	_aAUSTRALIA _92597
700			_aQu, Lexia _97732
700			_ade Maio, John _93656
700			_aRoopani, Dinika _97731
856			_uhttps://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/1806_direct_cross-examination_in_family_law_matters_report_0.pdf
856			_uhttps://aifs.gov.au/research/research-reports/direct-cross-examination-family-law-matters8ab6ba59a6-193855317 _yAccess the website
942			_2ddc _cREPORT