Critical analysis of the associated persons provisions of Part III of Essay

Critical analysis of the associated persons provisions of Part III of the Family Law Act 1996 (in particular section s.62(3)) - Essay Example n is it extends the court’s power to grant non-molestation orders by including a wider group of persons capable of becoming respondents by the inclusion of the term ‘associated person.’ The list of persons caught by Section 62(3) is exhaustive and includes a former or current spouse, a cohabitant or former cohabitant, persons who have merely shared a common household (except by reason of employment benefits or duties, or by reason of a tenancy or some sort), a relation, a fiancà © or former fiancà ©, a person with whom the complainant has had common responsibility for any child or have had a child with or the complainant and the associated person ‘are parties to the same family proceedings (other than proceedings under this part)’.3 Prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act 1996, the definition of a respondent had been more narrowly defined. A claimant had to first discover against whom she could obtain a non-molestation order against and then decide under what statutory provision she could properly utilize for the necessary non-molestation order. Depending on whether the complainant was a cohabitant or spouse the victim of domestic violence could obtain injunctive relief by virtue of three statutory provisions. They were, the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978 and the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983.4 The Family Law Act 1996 repeals and replaces those Acts and provides a cohesive remedy for protection against violence within the more liberal definition of the home. Craig Lind observes that the 1996 Act ‘for the first time provides a uniform code of domestic violence remedies available, in the main, in all courts with jurisdiction in family proceedings. It is much more victim and child-centred, concentrating on the harm being suffered within the household, and the remedies available to victims.’5 The 1996 Act followed recommendations made by the Law Commission that the