Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14246
Record ID: 24ce0f0d-e617-4a09-bf94-59f0432c360c
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPavone, Rachellen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T23:11:55Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T23:11:55Z-
dc.date.issued2002en
dc.identifier.citation76 (5), June 2002en
dc.identifier.issn0023-9267en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14246-
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherLaw Institute of Victoriaen
dc.subjectFamily lawen
dc.subjectLegal issuesen
dc.titleDo self-represented litigants receive a fair trial? The challenge for the Family Courten
dc.title.alternativeLaw Institute journalen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.catalogid1881en
dc.subject.keywordJournal article/research paperen
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.subject.keywordNationalen
dc.description.notesDescribes the implications of self-representation in Family Court matters where domestic violence is present. The author utilises the case of T v S, an appeal with regard to residence and contact for a minor, to exemplify the question. The allegations of abuse were hardly considered because the shame, fear and inexperience of the litigant (mother and victim) impeded a fair cross-examination with the father (and perpetrator). A diagnosis of personality disorder was admitted against the mother without considering battered women syndrome. The Appeal Court ordered a retrial. The author points out that the decision might bring consequences for other self-represented litigants, who participate in 35 per cent of Family Court cases in Australia.en
dc.identifier.sourceLaw Institute journalen
dc.date.entered2003-03-17en
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing