Free Legal Essay Marking!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hello , I was wondering if it's alright if you mark my lockout essay? 
I'm not sure if I'm answering the question properly and it's not finished yet.
Cheers.

Hey Booboo123! Sure thing, I've popped your essay below with some feedback!

Spoiler

Assess the effectiveness of New South Wales’ On Punch legislation and lock out laws on reducing alcohol fuelled assaults

As the controversial concern for the vision of Sydney’s vibrant nightlife increases, the need for reducing alcohol fuelled assaults become more important, as it’s a main factor in protecting society from harm. However, the input of media and community outcry of two atrocious deaths in Sydney CBD, resulted in a ‘rush’ of NSW’s one punch legislation and lockouts laws, have become somewhat ineffective as not enough measures are taken to ensure the needs are met for the community. I love the arguments you are making in this introduction! I think you should list what your body paragraphs are about, and also, maybe define what you view as "successful" legislation... Is it fair? Enforceable? Communally popular? Etc

On 21 January 2014, the government introduced a range of new measures to tackle drug and alcohol related violence and over the course of two years the amendment has stirred a society backlash on the ineffectiveness of dealing with alcohol fuelled assaults. I think you need a topic sentence that sets the stage a little better. If this paragraph sets up the history of the legislation, say this a little more clearly.Prior to all the backlash, there was already a controversial debate on whether the introduction of lockout laws are effective. Watch your tense here, you swap from past to present. This is clearly demonstrated in the media article “Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and intoxication) Bill 2014 and Liquor Amendment Bill 2014.” Rather than reference a media article like this, you would have been better off using the laws themselves!During the reading of the bill Hon. Michael Gallacher has announced that ‘more needs to be done to improve the safety and amenity of the Sydney central business district’ particularly during night time and to cover those safety issues. One of those ideas to deal with these measures were the Government’s tough and comprehensive package. The package is practically a policy designed to address the escalating problem of alcohol-related violence and coward punch attacks in Sydney CBD, and one of those points in the package is the precinct-wide freeze on liquor licences for new pubs and clubs which now refers to the Liquor Amendment Act 2014. I also think you need a conclusion. "Therefore, BLAH" or "Thus it can be seen that BLAH". Just something a little more conclusive/final.

The core of the Liquor Amendment Bill relies on the imposition of lockouts and last drinks in the expanded CBD and any other area that the regulations subsequently specify it’s the underlying ideology of the bill is that since it worked in Newcastle it will work in Sydney.Check your syntax here! It’s the assumption that since the introduction of lockouts and last drinks reduced violence in Newcastle it will also have the same result in Sydney. The assumption of this is by far contradicting as today the enforcement of the Liquor Amendment Act 2014 imposes restrictions on the lifestyle choices of people who want to be entertained while at the same time would like to have a drink at 3.00am. It can be argued that there’s an undeniable impact on the night time economy, where businesses are being penalised whom they had nothing to do with the recent violence. In a sense thousands of people will no longer want to stay in licensed premises past 3am once alcohol is no longer served but instead will try to go home while being out in the street intoxicated. Especially when 3am is the time for taxi changeover, more people will be more upfront to start a fight as less transport is available and this is a problem the government needs to address. It does not stop alcohol fuelled violence at that time but instead it increases the likelihood of violence during the 3-5am period. This is lots of awesome opinion here, I love it! But you aren't backing anything up with evidence. This is the difference between an academic essay and an opinion piece: Evidence. Cases, laws, media articles. Try to come up with some of these things which support your argument!

Yet, what’s the point of a 3am lockout if there’s a casino that can stay open and trading all night?

The fact that the casino’s boss announce that the Sydney’s Star Casino is ‘one of the safest venues in the world’ means that it should not be part of the lockout laws is quite confronting, as crime figures has demonstrated that the Pyrmont venue is one of the most if not dangerous in the state. This can be seen in the Sydney Morning Herald article “The Star doesn’t need Sydney’s lockout laws, says casino boss.”  The Star casino continues to enjoy exemption from the late-night laws which enforce 1.30 am lockouts and 3am last drinks, which his claim contradicts that of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research which demonstrated that during the last 2 years, alcohol related assaults has risen by 46 per cent, an average of 6.3 assaults per month. This associates to 75 assaults, which is three times as much as the central Sydney nightclub Ivy, which was named as the state’s most violent area in 2014. It’s this that the lockout laws are ineffective as people who often visited the Sydney’s CBD area will just head to other areas that are exempted from these laws that is deemed entertaining while at the same time be able to have drinks, and the result of this has led to a quite significant increase of alcohol-fuelled violence in Pyrmont. This is what I needed above, statistics! Fabulous! The legislation should not only be used in just the Sydney CBD district but be implemented right across the State, preventing people moving to other pubs, however it’s unlikely that will happen especially to the Star’s casino, due to the fact that it revenues large sums of money which in turn is given to the government. Hence the lockout laws are quite ineffective, as restricting the alcohol availability would make people be more eager to get drunk whilst at home or force them to move to another area increasing the trend of assault in the area.Although I love the arguments you are making with reference to the casinos and governments, try to keep this essay objective. The tone is a little too emotive, in my opinion.

On the other hand, the lockout laws have curbed alcohol related violence since their imposition but only in areas that have been potentially been known as a threat to society safety. This, for example, is a better topic sentence! This is clearly conveyed in The Age’s article “Why all Sydneysiders should be grateful for the lockout”, where a study has released that in Newcastle, the sixth biggest city in Australia, demonstrated that the city struggled with high levels of alcohol-fuelled violence for a number of years, until in 2008, the city decided to reduce the alcohol-related violence measures must be implemented and this was to stop selling alcohol in a small area of the city after 3am instead of the previous 5am. This modest two-hour decrease in the availability of alcohol is effective as it has reduced alcohol-related violence in Newcastle since March 2008 by more than 50 per cent. This new impact has later increased the number of smaller bars and licensed restaurants as a means of adapting to the new lockout laws and now Newcastle’s nightlife is much safer, diverse and prosperous. This can be further reinforced as according to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR), assaults declined more than 40 per cent in Kings Cross and 20 per cent in Sydney’s CBD after the alcohol availability was restricted in February 2014. The cities experience of reduced trading hours and availability reflects that of international cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as progressive countries such as Norway and the Netherlands. The data is clear that effective and modest earlier last-drink measures and a safer and vibrant nightlife with plenty of jobs can comfortably co-exist. This last paragraph was a little more on the money for me! Stats mixed with your arguments makes everything a little more sophisticated, I'd still like to see some laws/cases though, and check your sentence structure in some areas!

Missing a conclusion too (though I know you aren't done yet), try adding a summary of your essay! What have you discussed, what is your final judgement?

What I love about this essay is that you SMASH the opinion part of it. Your opinions are clear and fairly well organised too, awesome! You use statistics really well also.

My main point for improvement at the moment for you would be to work on inclusion of LCTMR (Laws, Cases, Treaties, Media, Reports). These are what backs up your argument, turns it from an opinion text to an academic text. You NEED these to make your points properly. Right now, you are doing Media and Reports (Stats) really, really well. Try to incorporate some more legislation in there (especially since the focus of this question is on legislation, you should be able to discuss the laws in depth). You should also be able to find some cases, R v Loveridge (2013) would be a good start! 

The hard part of your essay is done, you have the opinion! While there are also some structural issues and other minor things to fix, getting some more LCTMR evidence will get this essay really flowing well!

In terms of your specific concern about answering the question: I think you are definitely on the way to assessing (providing judgement), but perhaps you need to focus on the laws themselves a little more? In general, it is great, but maybe a little more detail is required to make it amazing. This will come naturally from including more evidence.

Great work Booboo123, thanks for posting, and I hope this feedback helps! 

[anotherworld2b]

hello I was wondering if I could have essay marked
I was quite confused how to do this essay so all comments are appreciated

[jamonwindeyer]

hello I was wondering if I could have essay marked
I was quite confused how to do this essay so all comments are appreciated

Hey there another world!! Absolutely, I've attached the essay below with comments throughout! 

Question: Assess the effectiveness of common law and the similarities and differences between statue and common law.

Spoiler

Law controls matters of human activity and regulates our lives. There are two sources of law that exist within our community. These two sources of law are the statute laws of Commonwealth and state parliaments and the common law principles, applied through precedent, of our federal and state courts in Australia. Common law is defined as law that is based on previous judgments of the courts that are known as precedents. I actually feel like that sentence is enough of a definition of the two laws! Your legal teacher knows what they are after all, the focus for Legal essays should always be analysis and evaluation. We don't need long descriptions of concepts, your reader knows it all already (though this question will probably require more content than most other essays). Statutory laws are written laws passed by legislature and government of a country. This essay will assess the effectiveness of common law and the similarities and differences between statute and common law by taking into consideration the fulfillment of the functions of law. This is a matter of preference, but I'm not a large fan of referring to the essay in this manner. Addressing the question so directly is a little bit off-putting I think, do what you feel. However, what I would recommend is making some sort of judgement here. Is common law effective or not? Make your opinion clear now ready to back up later. Finally, I'd like you to list the things you will be discussing in the essay paragraphs, this is an essential structural feature for a HSC essay.

Common law and statute law share distinct similarities that include the ideal of the fulfillment of the functions of law in Australian society. Try to integrate some statement about the effectiveness of common law into all of your topic sentences! Make the focus on your evaluation, the essay becomes more sophisticated that way. Some key similarities that are shared between the two sources of law are that both are subject to the rule of law and the fact that both have to submit to the constitution. The requirement of the two sources of law abiding to the Australian Constitution is of utmost importance because the Constitution is the set of basic law that provides rights for all Australians, such as freedom of religion and the right to compensation if the government acquires your property by which our nation is governed. It is important to the nation that the functions of the law are fulfilled in our society. Collectively, the law should fulfill particular functions whether they are common or statute law. Both statute and common law are binding on the Australian people. I personally believe, even for this question, this is too much content description without evaluating the effectiveness of common law. This is the focus of the question. So, try to integrate your evaluation of common law WHILE comparing and contrasting it to statute law. These functions include providing a structure for the creation, enforcement and alteration of law in accordance with wishes of society which is reflected in the Australian Parliament's response by passing the ‘Native TItle Act’ (1993) by the Keating government followed by the Howard government later passed the ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998)’.Good example! This particular event in Australian history finally acknowledged the ancient values held by the Indigenous Australians in the community by overturning of the term ‘terra nullius’ and the use of the previous precedent of the Gove Land Rights Case (1971). This particular event is reflective of how Common law and statute law both are used to enforce and alter law in accordance with the wishes of the community which is evident the creation of a new precedent principle by courts and new Act made by Parliament. Hence, common and state law evidently share distinct similarities. This paragraph covers the similarities and differences well, but I'm not getting evaluation yet.

Common law and statute law have distinct differences. Statute law is made by parliament, whereas common law is made by courts. One difference is that statute law has parliamentary sovereignty over common law. This means that statute law will overrule common law in cases where they clash.What effect does this have on the effect of common law? In Australia the laws made by our parliaments have sovereignty over all other laws, in particular common law. This means that the parliament can either enact statutes that endorse common law principles articulated by the courts and apply them to cases. Can parliaments apply statutes to cases? Parliament can also allow common law to govern certain aspects of society and pass statues complementing or partially regulating areas of common law. So are you saying common law works best in conjunction with statute law? However, parliament can also enact statutes overturning common law principles on the basis that they do not adequately or accurately reflect the values of society. Make sure every paragraph is concluded appropriately! 

The effectiveness of common law is reflected in the fact that it has been the basis of workable legal tradition for many centuries. Oh okay, now I see what you've done structurally, I do think this would work better integrated through the essay though! It has several advantages that includes the requirement that courts follow precedent means that similar cases are treated alike and this creates fairness in the legal system. Do you have any examples. This would be a great time for a case (I know there is one below, but this is a perfect place for one!) Another advantages Legal advisers can provide reliable advice to clients by referring to precedents set in previous cases. Another advantage is the ability of superior courts to create new precedents allows the law to adjust to changed circumstances (all change does not need to come from statute). Is statute slower? Less enforceable? What specifically are you driving at here? Common law also creates a basis for unbiased decisions which are based on legal expertise rather than opinion. One particular case in which the effectiveness of common law is evident is the the 'Snail in the bottle' case which illustrates how common law can be modified and develop legal principles that can be applied to the modern world. This particular case demonstrates how precedents can be changed according to a particular case that the adjudicator oversees. GOod thing? Bad thing? These advantages of common law reflect the the importance of functions of law such as providing a structure for the creation, enforcement and alteration of the law in accordance with the wishes of society and containing a degree of flexibility in its application to cover the various situations that may arise in its enforcement. Hence, the effectiveness of common law is reflected and supported by the clear advantages and the fulfillment of the functions of law.

Statute and common law are the two sources of law which coexist with each other. This allows law to effective by fulfilling the functions of law. Your conclusion needs a little more 'meat' than this. It should be 3-4 sentences. Restate the main idea(s) of the essay. List what you've discussed. Summarise your final viewpoint.

This is a pretty unusual question because it specifically demands content as well as evaluation and analysis, it is quite different to what you'll get in the HSC. So, it is important to balance your content with your evaluation, and where possible, do them simultaneously. I think this essay is a little too content focused, try to really develop the argument of your essay. What judgement do you make about common law? Make this obvious, establish it at the start, and thread it through your topic sentences and paragraphs. I like that you've structured the essay in this manner, however, I think it shifted the focus too much towards content and too far from evaluation. Have a read of this and try and craft a Thesis which is succinct and summarises your opinion on the subject matter.

That said, what you did describe was good. It was a good summary of the content in this part of the course. I would have liked more examples to display your points, but you covered most of the things I'd expect you to cover! Shifting the focus to the evaluative part of the question, and changing your paragraphs to suit this new focus, would be the main improvement I would suggest. Besides this, make sure every paragraph is introduced and concluded properly, make sure all sentences read well, and integrate a few more examples

I hope this helps!! 

[anotherworld2b]

Thank you so much for your comments
Your help is extremely appreciated 
For para 1 I incorporated a case example to explain how statute and common law are similar and spent about 3-4 sentences doing this. How would I shorten these sentences while keeping the information? Is this way of explaining the similarities effective and in enough depth? Would I need more similarities for paragraph one?
For evaluation do you basically say that:
Drawn from the involvement of both statute and common law in the 'Native Title Act' (1993) and  ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998) the effectiveness of common law in creating a new precedent is supported by fulfilling the function of a altering the law in accordance with wishes of society specifically for Indigenous Australians.

For common law I am kind of confused on what aspects to say to support either its ineffective or effective...
If I wanted to integrate similarities and differences in paragraphs 1 and 2 would this be more effective in answer this question?
Would you explain 1 similarity they share and how and then explain 1 difference they have?
For differences: I basically know that there's a difference in sovereignty (statute over common law), common law made in courts and statute made in parliament. I couldn't find any other differences or examples of cases to use to explain these points.

[jamonwindeyer]

Thank you so much for your comments
Your help is extremely appreciated 
For para 1 I incorporated a case example to explain how statute and common law are similar and spent about 3-4 sentences doing this. How would I shorten these sentences while keeping the information?

It's about cutting out the fluff and only leaving the information that is necessary for your analysis, keeping the focus there. For example, "This particular event in Australian history finally acknowledged the ancient values held by the Indigenous Australians in the community by" is unnecessary, you can literally replace it with the word "The" and the meaning remains the same.

For evaluation do you basically say that:
Drawn from the involvement of both statute and common law in the 'Native Title Act' (1993) and  ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998) the effectiveness of common law in creating a new precedent is supported by fulfilling the function of a altering the law in accordance with wishes of society specifically for Indigenous Australians.

Pretty much! That is nice and concise and focused on evaluation, excellent.

For common law I am kind of confused on what aspects to say to support either its ineffective or effective...

The effectiveness of common law is based on how it is applied in judicial cases, and in this question, is it applied more effectively or less effectively than statute law?  Is a precedent effective in achieving just outcomes in cases? Is a precedent restrictive for future decisions? Are precedents more effective than laws? In which circumstances?

If I wanted to integrate similarities and differences in paragraphs 1 and 2 would this be more effective in answer this question?
Would you explain 1 similarity they share and how and then explain 1 difference they have?
For differences: I basically know that there's a difference in sovereignty (statute over common law), common law made in courts and statute made in parliament. I couldn't find any other differences or examples of cases to use to explain these points.

I think what would address these issues is re-thinking your structure. Try looking at different legal areas and comparing the approach of statute law and common law in that area. For example, domestic violence. How are laws applied in this area? How has precedent been applied? Which is better and why? This will allow you to document differences between the two and judge the effectiveness of common law in comparison to statute law. Do this three times, different theme per paragraph. It might be a better fit for you 

[anotherworld2b]

Hello I'm back I rewrote my intro and first paragraph
I was wondering if I could get feedback asap because my inclass essay is tomorrow XO

Law controls matters of human activity and regulates our lives. There are two sources of law that exist within our community. These two sources of law are the statute laws of Commonwealth and state parliaments and the common law principles, applied through precedent, of our federal and state courts in Australia. In an interconnected world, these laws strive to maintain peace and safety among people and provide ways to resolve issues that do arise among individuals. Despite this, common law in particular can be flawed and have weaknesses in fulfilling the characteristics of effective law and the functions of law. The ineffectiveness and weaknesses of common law is evident in the similarities and differences between statute and common law supported by relevant cases.


Both sources of law share distinct similarities that include the ideal of the fulfillment of the functions of law in Australian society. One key similarity shared between the two sources of law is that both are subject to the rule of law and that both have to submit to the constitution. The requirement of the two sources of law abiding to the Australian Constitution is of utmost importance because the Constitution is the set of basic law that provides rights for all Australians, such as freedom of religion and the right to compensation if the government acquires your property by which our nation is governed. This is further reflected in the importance that people should have confidence in the broader legal system that governs the operation of such laws. Collectively, the law should fulfill particular functions whether they are common or statute law conveying the effectiveness of law.The overturning of the term ‘terra nullius’ and the use of the previous precedent of the ‘Gove Land Rights Case (1971)’ is evident of how Common law and statute law both reflect the enforcement and alteration of law in accordance with the wishes of society. Drawn from the involvement of both statute and common law in the 'Native Title Act' (1993) and ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998) the ineffectiveness of common law is reflected in the reluctance of judges to depart from precedent of the ‘Gove Land Rights Case (1971)’ to alter the law in accordance with wishes of society specifically for the Indigenous Australians. Common law has not always worked efficiently. The start of the rigid use of precedent by the early English courts limited the ability to deal with legal issues that were different from past cases. This is still evident today hindering the effectiveness of common law due to the fact that no two cases are exactly the same but simply similar causing uncertainty that cases will be distinguished, overruled, reversed or disapproved appropriately. Hence, flaws and ineffectiveness can be seen in the application of common law in contrast to Statute law.

[jamonwindeyer]

Hello I'm back I rewrote my intro and first paragraph
I was wondering if I could get feedback asap because my inclass essay is tomorrow XO

Sure thing! It's attached here with some brief comments throughout 

Spoiler

Law controls matters of human activity and regulates our lives. Try and give a more formal definition here. For any other word I wouldn't stress it, but since it is your Thesis statement and this is Legal Studies, it needs to be solid. There are two sources of law that exist within our community. These two sources of law are the statute laws of Commonwealth and state parliaments and the common law principles, applied through precedent, of our federal and state courts in Australia. In an interconnected world, these laws strive to maintain peace and safety among people and provide ways to resolve issues that do arise among individuals. This is great! Much more succinct! Despite this, common law in particular can be flawed and have weaknesses in fulfilling the characteristics of effective law and the functions of law. The ineffectiveness and weaknesses of common law is evident in the similarities and differences between statute and common law supported by relevant cases. This is a much more effective introduction. To the point, gives a clear opinion, and sets up the argument well, good job.


Both sources of law share distinct similarities that include the ideal of the fulfillment of the functions of law in Australian society. Wording was a tad awkward there, try something more like "both directed towards the fulfilment of the functions of law in society," or something like that. One key similarity shared between the two sources of law is that both are subject to the rule of law and that both have to submit to the constitution. The requirement of the two sources of law abiding to the Australian Constitution is of utmost importance because the Constitution is the set of basic law that provides rights for all Australians, such as freedom of religion and the right to compensation if the government acquires your property by which our nation is governed. Good example. This is further reflected in the importance that people should have confidence in the broader legal system that governs the operation of such laws. Collectively, the law should fulfill particular functions whether they are common or statute law conveying the effectiveness of law. Those last two sentences were a bit wish-washy, they didn't add anything new to your argument. Avoid these sort of "filler" sentences and focus on hard examples and analysis. The overturning of the term ‘terra nullius’ and the use of the previous precedent of the ‘Gove Land Rights Case (1971)’ is evident of how Common law and statute law both reflect the enforcement and alteration of law in accordance with the wishes of society. Drawn from the involvement of both statute and common law in the 'Native Title Act' (1993) and ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998) the ineffectiveness of common law is reflected in the reluctance of judges to depart from precedent of the ‘Gove Land Rights Case (1971)’ to alter the law in accordance with wishes of society specifically for the Indigenous Australians. Very nice link to draw there, however it sort of goes against the sentence before this one. You've said common law was effective, now saying it is ineffective, without any comparative conjunction like "However" or "On the other hand." Breaks the flow a little. Common law has not always worked efficiently. The start of the rigid use of precedent by the early English courts limited the ability to deal with legal issues that were different from past cases. This is still evident today hindering the effectiveness of common law due to the fact that no two cases are exactly the same but simply similar causing uncertainty that cases will be distinguished, overruled, reversed or disapproved appropriately. This would be a good time for a contemporary example, historical analysis is never quite as effective. Hence, flaws and ineffectiveness can be seen in the application of common law in contrast to Statute law. Good, succinct.

This works really well anotherworld2b, good on you for working to improve it!! A few comments throughout, take them or leave them, on the whole this works really well Be sure to keep re-enforcing your argument, stay on topic and be succinct with your word choice, focus on examples, analysis and opinion  good luck!! 

[Essej]

Hey Jamon !

In keeping with my school's "prepare you for the end of the day" theme, I have been assigned yet another task which involves 1 of 2 possible 25mark essays being assessed on the due date.

They are:

1. To what extent has law reform achieved justice for family members in alternative family relationships? Include a discussion on same sex relationships and surrogacy and birth technologies.

2. To what extent has family law reform achieved just outcomes for family members experiencing problems? Include a discussion on the changing nature of parental responsibility and care and protection of children.

Hoping you can take a look at the draft i've done for the first essay

Thanks in advance !

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Jamon !

In keeping with my school's "prepare you for the end of the day" theme, I have been assigned yet another task which involves 1 of 2 possible 25mark essays being assessed on the due date.

They are:

1. To what extent has law reform achieved justice for family members in alternative family relationships? Include a discussion on same sex relationships and surrogacy and birth technologies.

2. To what extent has family law reform achieved just outcomes for family members experiencing problems? Include a discussion on the changing nature of parental responsibility and care and protection of children.

Hoping you can take a look at the draft i've done for the first essay

Thanks in advance !

Hey Essej!! This is a very cool theme, always working towards an end goal  your essay is below with some comments throughout!!

Spoiler

1. To what extent has law reform achieved justice for family members in alternative family relationships? Include a discussion on same sex relationships and surrogacy and birth technologies.

In contemporary society, shifting societal attitudes towards sexual orientation and technological developments have given rise to the need for reform in family law. Awesome introductory sentence. The ambiguous definition of the familial unit within the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) along with considerable legislative reform has seen an amelioration in inequalities faced by family members in relationships alternate to the nuclear one. Sophistication falls slightly with "the nuclear one," and further, the ambiguity in the FLA has not assisted in ameliorating inequality, rather, it sort of instigated it. Wording adjustment? Moreover, the introduction of unique situations arising from technological advancements such as in-vitro fertilisation and surrogacy has forced the legal system to adapt, in keeping with the overarching principle of the ‘best interests of the child’. It is clear that limitations are evident in the law’s ability to address issues of justice for evolving families, however concerted efforts have been made to ensure that justice prevails. A very solid Thesis paragraph, I like that the argument sits somewhere in the middle of good/bad, they are always more sophisticated.

In a changing society, the increase in alternative family relationships has seen a modification in Australia’s legal framework as new situations arise that compromise individual and collective equality. Recognition of De facto relationships, wherein two people live together in a bona fide domestic relationship without being married, is one such example. Great! However, I'd like to see an evaluative statement made here, your judgement should specifically form part of these opening sentences, and then you back it up in the paragraph. Despite encompassing approximately 10% of couples (2011), De facto relationships were not recognised in NSW until the passing of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984. Be sure to reference information correctly, where is this figure from (probably ABS), and ensure that (NSW) is on the end of your law. A change in societal perception through a disillusionment with the ‘requirement’ for marriage sparked such reforms, in which the criteria for heterosexual de facto relationships is clearly defined as “Lasting 2 or more years or having children involved” and “Demonstrating commitment to each other”. Details are slightly redundant, but the first bit is good to include. Also known as the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, this legislation achieved justice for alternate family relationships by ensuring that heterosexual unmarried couples gained legislative protection in issues of property division upon relationship breakdown. Good. These reforms were challenged in Davies v. Sparkes (1990). In this case, it was found that despite regular payments of “financial maintenance”, a stipulated characteristic of a de facto relationship, not enough features of such a relationship existed to warrant De facto status and therefore a monetary payment upon the breakdown of the relationship. Remember that you do NOT need to go into case details beyond a single phrase, like, "Davies v Sparkes (1990), a financial dispute surrounding the breakdown of a de-facto relationship." Focus on the legal issues coming out of the case. Keep it in if you prefer, but it is a little redundant. This lack of legal documentation was addressed in the opening of a NSW Relationship Register in 2010, which in the words of the NSW Attorney General, “will make it easier for unmarried couples to access legal entitlements and prove they are in a committed or de facto relationship”. Good use of quote. Through an increase in accessibility and recognition of de facto couples, it is evident that notwithstanding the time delay in adapting legal framework, the system has made effective attempts to achieve justice for those in alternative family relationships. Excellently argued, well done.

The justice which alternative family relationships ultimately achieve in the legal system can be further examined through the controversial contemporary issue of same-sex relationships. First phrase of that sentence was just slightly messy. Again, add a judgement! A lack of legal recognition of homosexual relationships within the Family Law Act (1961) (Cth) echoed contextual discrimination against the minority. However, changing social attitudes towards homosexual couples, as mirrored by a 2015 survey in which 74% of the Labor Party were in support of marriage equality (Up from 38% in 2004), have given rise to the necessity of law reform. Any reasons you took the Labor party, not the whole of society? Just curious. Time delays, a prevalent limitation of the legal system, play a large role in the lack of justice achieved for same-sex couples. It was not until the passing of the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (NSW) that homosexual couples were given legal recognition. This act amended the aforementioned 1984 act to extend rights given to heterosexual couples to same-sex couples, specifically regarding inheritance, decision making in the event of death and compensation in line with the legal principle of equality. Legal recognition of same-sex couples in relation to health insurance was also granted in Hope and Brown v NIB (1994), affording same-sex couples further alignment with other familial relationships. That's a more efficient case reference there, excellent.

Moreover, in reforming the law the legal system aims to cement individual rights and freedoms; including the right to be free from prejudice. The enactment of the Same Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - General Law Reform) Act 2008 in response to the 2007 Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report exemplified this. In amending 84 Commonwealth laws to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in areas such as social security and child support, law reform can be seen to once more achieve justice for alternative family relationships. Excellent. The recurrent shortcoming of the law in time delays relating to same-sex couples was positively addressed in a 2010 SMH Article entitled “Could this be the year of the modern family?”. Referencing the Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010 (NSW), the author reveals the vast progression of same-sex law reform, stating that “NSW has finally made a claim to history by eliminating the last direct piece of legislative discrimination on the basis of sexuality”. Good use of media. It is likely that through allowing same-sex couples to adopt, the act will be a further impetus for “a shift in social, as well as legal, stigmas attached to same-sex families.” Clearly, the lengthy time inefficiencies within the legal system have once more inhibited the eventual prevalence of justice for those in same-sex relationships. Fantastic paragraph! However, the somewhat negative conclusion you draw at the end isn't exactly in line with the argument throughout, which is quite positive, do be a little careful. I'll also add that your expression in these paragraphs could be more succinct, you are going to need to cut words for an exam situation (probably), I'd cut them here.

Technological innovation in modern society is yet another condition which gives rise to law reform in the area of alternative family relationships. Add judgement. Artificial conception through in-vitro fertilisation raises a multitude of ethical questions regarding the treatment of human life as parental roles move past the simple “mother” and “father”. Slightly redundant comment, UNLESS you then relate it to some legal theme, right now it is just a comment in space. I can skip to the next one with no loss to meaning. In response to such technologies, the legal system has addressed the issues of status and parenthood in relation to embryos through the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW). This legislation states that if a husband and wife use their own sperm and ova, the resulting child will have the same legal status as one conceived naturally, effectively redressing inequalities within society and the legal system. The Act also applies to parenthood in regards to IVF, stating ”When a woman becomes pregnant by using donor sperm from someone other than her husband, then that man is presumed not to be the father of the child born”. This notion of automatic “Presumption of paternity” was tested in  B v J (1996), wherein the utilitarian reform allowed the Family Court to uphold that the man with whom the mother had a relationship with, not the sperm donor, was the legal father of the child. You need a conclusive statement here, just as before!

The limitations of the law in ethically questionable areas as technology changes is further demonstrated in the area of surrogacy. This sentence integrates your judgement, better. Surrogacy occurs when one woman agrees to fall pregnant and bear a child for a (usually childless) couple, who adopt the child when it is born. Don't define legal terms: Your reader knows this already! Whilst altruistic surrogacy, where a woman agrees to bear a child for no financial gain, is legal in Australia, its reverse, commercial surrogacy, is outlawed. Again, redundant information, focus on the analysis! The flaws within the legal system in regards to achieving justice for families in alternate relationships was brought forth in Re Michael (2009). This a nightmare case which demonstrated that an altruistic surrogacy in NSW did not lead to an adoption due to a lack of regulation by the NSW government. Be careful not to use expressive language like "nightmare," you must remain objective. With regard to the case itself, you need to draw out the implications of this more! The criminalisation of commercial surrogacy meanwhile in the Surrogacy Act 2011 (NSW), in response to growing negativity surrounding celebrity Nicole Kidman’s use of “gestational carriers” aims to redress the “dehumanisation” of women in such a process. NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith is quoted in a 2012 ABC “The Drum” article entitled “The surrogacy trap: why our laws need new life” explaining the practice is "unethical" and "not in the best interests of the mother or the child". Often ignored in the process, children’s basic rights can be seen to be disregarded in the prioritisation of resolving parenthood issues. However, social influences following the UN’s 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) are evident in the Surrogacy reform’s focus on advancing the “best interests of the child”. Good inclusion of CROC here. In requiring independent counsellor’s report that parenthood transfers are “in the best interests of the child” it is evident that through law reform eventual justice has been achieved for all parties to an alternative familial relationship. This paragraph is noticeably weaker than the others (take this as a complement, because this paragraph is still exceptionally strong). It is content focused, try and shift over to focus more on evaluative analysis, and draw out implications from your examples more efficiently (analysis).


In summary, through a culmination of shifting societal attitudes towards sexual minorities as well as technological innovation, law reform has become a necessity in contemporary society. The rise in alternative family relationships has seen immense change in Australia’s legal framework, with time delays and initial disregard for the rights of children being the major limitations of the legal system in this area. Despite obvious flaws, overall law reform can be seen to eventually successfully achieve justice for those in alternative family relationships.Excellent, succinct conclusion, nicely done!

A thing of beauty Essej, seriously good work! I mostly picked on little things (there wasn't any big issues to fix), but you could write this in the HSC and score EXCEPTIONALLY well. Be sure to keep the focus on analysis (no redundant case details or definition of legal terms), you occasionally stray ever so slightly into 'content vomit.' Further, some structural things to fix, primarily adding your judgement to your topic sentences in each paragraph. This is vital to set up your evaluation from the start.

Great work Essej, very very hard to fault! 

[Essej]

Hey Essej!! This is a very cool theme, always working towards an end goal  your essay is below with some comments throughout!!

Spoiler

1. To what extent has law reform achieved justice for family members in alternative family relationships? Include a discussion on same sex relationships and surrogacy and birth technologies.

In contemporary society, shifting societal attitudes towards sexual orientation and technological developments have given rise to the need for reform in family law. Awesome introductory sentence. The ambiguous definition of the familial unit within the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) along with considerable legislative reform has seen an amelioration in inequalities faced by family members in relationships alternate to the nuclear one. Sophistication falls slightly with "the nuclear one," and further, the ambiguity in the FLA has not assisted in ameliorating inequality, rather, it sort of instigated it. Wording adjustment? Moreover, the introduction of unique situations arising from technological advancements such as in-vitro fertilisation and surrogacy has forced the legal system to adapt, in keeping with the overarching principle of the ‘best interests of the child’. It is clear that limitations are evident in the law’s ability to address issues of justice for evolving families, however concerted efforts have been made to ensure that justice prevails. A very solid Thesis paragraph, I like that the argument sits somewhere in the middle of good/bad, they are always more sophisticated.

In a changing society, the increase in alternative family relationships has seen a modification in Australia’s legal framework as new situations arise that compromise individual and collective equality. Recognition of De facto relationships, wherein two people live together in a bona fide domestic relationship without being married, is one such example. Great! However, I'd like to see an evaluative statement made here, your judgement should specifically form part of these opening sentences, and then you back it up in the paragraph. Despite encompassing approximately 10% of couples (2011), De facto relationships were not recognised in NSW until the passing of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984. Be sure to reference information correctly, where is this figure from (probably ABS), and ensure that (NSW) is on the end of your law. A change in societal perception through a disillusionment with the ‘requirement’ for marriage sparked such reforms, in which the criteria for heterosexual de facto relationships is clearly defined as “Lasting 2 or more years or having children involved” and “Demonstrating commitment to each other”. Details are slightly redundant, but the first bit is good to include. Also known as the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, this legislation achieved justice for alternate family relationships by ensuring that heterosexual unmarried couples gained legislative protection in issues of property division upon relationship breakdown. Good. These reforms were challenged in Davies v. Sparkes (1990). In this case, it was found that despite regular payments of “financial maintenance”, a stipulated characteristic of a de facto relationship, not enough features of such a relationship existed to warrant De facto status and therefore a monetary payment upon the breakdown of the relationship. Remember that you do NOT need to go into case details beyond a single phrase, like, "Davies v Sparkes (1990), a financial dispute surrounding the breakdown of a de-facto relationship." Focus on the legal issues coming out of the case. Keep it in if you prefer, but it is a little redundant. This lack of legal documentation was addressed in the opening of a NSW Relationship Register in 2010, which in the words of the NSW Attorney General, “will make it easier for unmarried couples to access legal entitlements and prove they are in a committed or de facto relationship”. Good use of quote. Through an increase in accessibility and recognition of de facto couples, it is evident that notwithstanding the time delay in adapting legal framework, the system has made effective attempts to achieve justice for those in alternative family relationships. Excellently argued, well done.

The justice which alternative family relationships ultimately achieve in the legal system can be further examined through the controversial contemporary issue of same-sex relationships. First phrase of that sentence was just slightly messy. Again, add a judgement! A lack of legal recognition of homosexual relationships within the Family Law Act (1961) (Cth) echoed contextual discrimination against the minority. However, changing social attitudes towards homosexual couples, as mirrored by a 2015 survey in which 74% of the Labor Party were in support of marriage equality (Up from 38% in 2004), have given rise to the necessity of law reform. Any reasons you took the Labor party, not the whole of society? Just curious. Time delays, a prevalent limitation of the legal system, play a large role in the lack of justice achieved for same-sex couples. It was not until the passing of the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (NSW) that homosexual couples were given legal recognition. This act amended the aforementioned 1984 act to extend rights given to heterosexual couples to same-sex couples, specifically regarding inheritance, decision making in the event of death and compensation in line with the legal principle of equality. Legal recognition of same-sex couples in relation to health insurance was also granted in Hope and Brown v NIB (1994), affording same-sex couples further alignment with other familial relationships. That's a more efficient case reference there, excellent.

Moreover, in reforming the law the legal system aims to cement individual rights and freedoms; including the right to be free from prejudice. The enactment of the Same Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - General Law Reform) Act 2008 in response to the 2007 Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report exemplified this. In amending 84 Commonwealth laws to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in areas such as social security and child support, law reform can be seen to once more achieve justice for alternative family relationships. Excellent. The recurrent shortcoming of the law in time delays relating to same-sex couples was positively addressed in a 2010 SMH Article entitled “Could this be the year of the modern family?”. Referencing the Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010 (NSW), the author reveals the vast progression of same-sex law reform, stating that “NSW has finally made a claim to history by eliminating the last direct piece of legislative discrimination on the basis of sexuality”. Good use of media. It is likely that through allowing same-sex couples to adopt, the act will be a further impetus for “a shift in social, as well as legal, stigmas attached to same-sex families.” Clearly, the lengthy time inefficiencies within the legal system have once more inhibited the eventual prevalence of justice for those in same-sex relationships. Fantastic paragraph! However, the somewhat negative conclusion you draw at the end isn't exactly in line with the argument throughout, which is quite positive, do be a little careful. I'll also add that your expression in these paragraphs could be more succinct, you are going to need to cut words for an exam situation (probably), I'd cut them here.

Technological innovation in modern society is yet another condition which gives rise to law reform in the area of alternative family relationships. Add judgement. Artificial conception through in-vitro fertilisation raises a multitude of ethical questions regarding the treatment of human life as parental roles move past the simple “mother” and “father”. Slightly redundant comment, UNLESS you then relate it to some legal theme, right now it is just a comment in space. I can skip to the next one with no loss to meaning. In response to such technologies, the legal system has addressed the issues of status and parenthood in relation to embryos through the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW). This legislation states that if a husband and wife use their own sperm and ova, the resulting child will have the same legal status as one conceived naturally, effectively redressing inequalities within society and the legal system. The Act also applies to parenthood in regards to IVF, stating ”When a woman becomes pregnant by using donor sperm from someone other than her husband, then that man is presumed not to be the father of the child born”. This notion of automatic “Presumption of paternity” was tested in  B v J (1996), wherein the utilitarian reform allowed the Family Court to uphold that the man with whom the mother had a relationship with, not the sperm donor, was the legal father of the child. You need a conclusive statement here, just as before!

The limitations of the law in ethically questionable areas as technology changes is further demonstrated in the area of surrogacy. This sentence integrates your judgement, better. Surrogacy occurs when one woman agrees to fall pregnant and bear a child for a (usually childless) couple, who adopt the child when it is born. Don't define legal terms: Your reader knows this already! Whilst altruistic surrogacy, where a woman agrees to bear a child for no financial gain, is legal in Australia, its reverse, commercial surrogacy, is outlawed. Again, redundant information, focus on the analysis! The flaws within the legal system in regards to achieving justice for families in alternate relationships was brought forth in Re Michael (2009). This a nightmare case which demonstrated that an altruistic surrogacy in NSW did not lead to an adoption due to a lack of regulation by the NSW government. Be careful not to use expressive language like "nightmare," you must remain objective. With regard to the case itself, you need to draw out the implications of this more! The criminalisation of commercial surrogacy meanwhile in the Surrogacy Act 2011 (NSW), in response to growing negativity surrounding celebrity Nicole Kidman’s use of “gestational carriers” aims to redress the “dehumanisation” of women in such a process. NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith is quoted in a 2012 ABC “The Drum” article entitled “The surrogacy trap: why our laws need new life” explaining the practice is "unethical" and "not in the best interests of the mother or the child". Often ignored in the process, children’s basic rights can be seen to be disregarded in the prioritisation of resolving parenthood issues. However, social influences following the UN’s 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) are evident in the Surrogacy reform’s focus on advancing the “best interests of the child”. Good inclusion of CROC here. In requiring independent counsellor’s report that parenthood transfers are “in the best interests of the child” it is evident that through law reform eventual justice has been achieved for all parties to an alternative familial relationship. This paragraph is noticeably weaker than the others (take this as a complement, because this paragraph is still exceptionally strong). It is content focused, try and shift over to focus more on evaluative analysis, and draw out implications from your examples more efficiently (analysis).


In summary, through a culmination of shifting societal attitudes towards sexual minorities as well as technological innovation, law reform has become a necessity in contemporary society. The rise in alternative family relationships has seen immense change in Australia’s legal framework, with time delays and initial disregard for the rights of children being the major limitations of the legal system in this area. Despite obvious flaws, overall law reform can be seen to eventually successfully achieve justice for those in alternative family relationships.Excellent, succinct conclusion, nicely done!

A thing of beauty Essej, seriously good work! I mostly picked on little things (there wasn't any big issues to fix), but you could write this in the HSC and score EXCEPTIONALLY well. Be sure to keep the focus on analysis (no redundant case details or definition of legal terms), you occasionally stray ever so slightly into 'content vomit.' Further, some structural things to fix, primarily adding your judgement to your topic sentences in each paragraph. This is vital to set up your evaluation from the start.

Great work Essej, very very hard to fault! 

Thanks Jamon !

Unfortunately as I was working on the other parts of the assessment, I won't be able to resend you my edited draft! Apologies 

However i've definitely improved my essay with your recommendations and completely forgot about adding judgement to my topic sentences and vomiting content when i fell into a writing lull, thanks for reminding me!

Haha i was given the support of marriage equality statistic by my teacher, and much to my surprise when i checked up on it it regarded the labor party! I guess to justify it I would say that over time government perception (in addition to societal) regarding marriage equality has changed, and of course even though labor aren't in power right now parliament is where the changes can best take effect.

I'm more than likely going to remove the de facto paragraph when writing the actual essay as a) it's not required in the question and b) my essay is way too long  .

But once again thanks heaps, hope to see you back on the forums soon!

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks Jamon !

Unfortunately as I was working on the other parts of the assessment, I won't be able to resend you my edited draft! Apologies 

However i've definitely improved my essay with your recommendations and completely forgot about adding judgement to my topic sentences and vomiting content when i fell into a writing lull, thanks for reminding me!

Haha i was given the support of marriage equality statistic by my teacher, and much to my surprise when i checked up on it it regarded the labor party! I guess to justify it I would say that over time government perception (in addition to societal) regarding marriage equality has changed, and of course even though labor aren't in power right now parliament is where the changes can best take effect.

I'm more than likely going to remove the de facto paragraph when writing the actual essay as a) it's not required in the question and b) my essay is way too long  .

But once again thanks heaps, hope to see you back on the forums soon!

No problem Essej! Happy to be of help 

[king_sanj]

Hey guys! Can I please get feedback for my family law essay?
Specific issues:
- I feel like my arguments are imbalanced or are not satisfactorily proved
- Are there enough LCMs?
Thanks so much

Evaluate the effectiveness of family law in responding to the changing values in the community
Family law is the body of law which governs specific areas such as children or property in relation to families. The main law governing this is the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Over the years, there has been significant law reform concerning family law, in the form of new precedents, amendments and Acts. Changing values in the community refer to the gradual shifts in morals and ethics held by wider society.  The will and views of the majority is necessary to be taken into account in the process of law reform. This reflection of changing values in by the law is necessary in a social democracy such as Australia. Two contemporary issues relating to family law which involve a degree of controversy and media attention are: the recognition of same-sex relationships as well as the care and protection of children.

A significant contemporary issue concerning family law is the rights and recognition of same-sex relationships. The substantial advancements in the wider community’s recognition of gay rights in the last few decades has coincided with reflective law reform which ultimately led to the amendments to the law concerning the recognition of same-sex relationships. In the case of Howard v Andrews (1996), an individual in a same-sex relationship was barred from being able to inherit, after his death, the property of his partner of 14 years. This led to the 1999 amendment to the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (Cth) which gave same-sex civil couples the same rights as heterosexual de facto couples in regards to property. The law was further reformed in 2008, where 85 amendments were passed across multiple laws to erase disadvantages faced by same-sex couples compared to heterosexual de facto couples. However, in 2004, both houses of federal parliament passed an amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), adding “marriage is between one man and one woman” in order to prevent same-sex couples from getting married since the specification had not been explicitly stated in the Act previously. In both 2005 and 2012, bills seeking to dissolve the 2004 amendment were voted down in both houses of parliament. A 2012, ABC News Article [“Lower House votes down same-sex marriage bill”], only 42 MPs were reported to have supported the private members bill  in 2012, whereas 98 MPs voted against it.  In contrast, according to an episode of “The Project”, in 2011, a Galaxy poll reported that 67% of Australians were in favour of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, support for marriage equality has statistically being growing. According to a Sydney Morning Herald article in 2014, by Lisa Cox, “Poll shows growing support for same-sex marriage”, a Crosby Textor poll found that 72% of Australians want same-sex marriage legalised”. This shows a lack of accurate representation of the public’s views in parliament. Therefore, family law has been very reflective of changing values to a large extent, concerning the rights and recognition same-sex relationships. However, its ability to accurately reflect changing community values is diminished by its failure to uphold the public majority’s support for same sex marriage.

The issue of the care and protection of children has attracted major reform to family law and related acts in the past few decades. Children are seen by the wider community to be vulnerable members of society, and hence, require greater levels of protection. Consequently, the law has also recognised this. At a state level, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) provides for mandatory reporting to Community Services NSW (CSN); formerly known as DoCS; in cases where a child is considered to be at risk of harm. This operates at a domestic level as well and is heavily linked to family law in epitomising the safety of children. However, despite this, many cases of child deaths continue to occur. According to the Sydney Morning Herald [“DOCS didn’t protect Kiesha”: Tim Barlass: 2013], in 2011, A 6 year old girl, Kiesha Abrahams was repeated abused and murdered while under the care of her mother and step-father. However, it is reported that there had been numerous reports to DoCS [currently called Community Services NSW [CSN]] about the concerning environment in which she lived: a mother who had previously abused her. This is despite, the law’s attempts to maximise the level of care and protection given to children. For example, courts are required to take into account, the best interests of the child while making decisions regarding families, such as divorce and custody. This ensures that children are adequately cared for. However, the NSW Ombudsman’s annual report of “reviewable deaths of children” in NSW every year reveals the children’s cases known to CSN, who have died as a result of abuse or neglect. In 2007, the figure stood at, no less than 150. Despite the significant efforts of family law and related legislation, the problem of instrumental departments such as DoCS being under-resourced allows for many children to be left in abusive environments, even facing death in some cases. This drastically reduces the law’s effectiveness in protecting children. Thus, in practice, although law reform seeks to reflect changing community values concerning the care and protection of children, it isn’t able to do so effectively.

The law has undergone tremendous reform over the past few decades in terms of families in order to correlate with the community’s changing values and perceptions. This is particularly true in terms of the recognition of same-sex relationships as well as the care and protection of children. In the area of same-sex relationships, discrimination is still yet to be effectively curbed and the need for marriage equality is yet to be served. In the issue of the care and protection of children, family law’s effectiveness is inhibited by under-resourced departments. Therefore, to a large extent, family law has been effective in reflecting changing values of the community. However, it is still yet to keep up with these changes in current times due to flaws either in representation of the public in the legislature or the ability of the legal system to cater for its purposes effectively.   

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey guys! Can I please get feedback for my family law essay?
Specific issues:
- I feel like my arguments are imbalanced or are not satisfactorily proved
- Are there enough LCMs?
Thanks so much

Hey king_sanj! Definitely, I've attached your essay with some comments throughout. To give you (and myself) an idea of how much LCMTR you are using (LCM, same thing), I'll highlight them red 

Spoiler

Evaluate the effectiveness of family law in responding to the changing values in the community.

Family law is the body of law which governs specific areas such as children or property in relation to families. The main law governing this is the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It is better to start your essay with an argument or position, you don't need facts like this, the marker knows this already! Over the years, there has been significant law reform concerning family law, in the form of new precedents, amendments and Acts. Changing values in the community refer to the gradual shifts in morals and ethics held by wider society.  Again, you don't need to define terms like this. The will and views of the majority is necessary to be taken into account in the process of law reform. I like this statement! Summarises the ideas behind the essay very succinctly. You could blend this with the following sentence to make it more succinct. This reflection of changing values in by the law is necessary in a social democracy such as Australia. Two contemporary issues relating to family law which involve a degree of controversy and media attention are: the recognition of same-sex relationships as well as the care and protection of children. What you are missing here is a judgement; how effective has law reform been in responding to this issue? If you don't make a judgement, you aren't answering the 'evaluate' aspect of the question.

A significant contemporary issue concerning family law is the rights and recognition of same-sex relationships. The substantial advancements in the wider community’s recognition of gay rights in the last few decades has coincided with reflective law reform which ultimately led to the amendments to the law concerning the recognition of same-sex relationships. How effective have they been?  In the case of Howard v Andrews (1996), an individual in a same-sex relationship was barred from being able to inherit, after his death, the property of his partner of 14 years. This led to the 1999 amendment to the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (Cth) which gave same-sex civil couples the same rights as heterosexual de facto couples in regards to property. Great example! You now need to use it to say "law reform has thus been effective/ineffective in responding to changing societal attitudes towards homosexual relationships," for example. The law was further reformed in 2008, where 85 amendments were passed across multiple laws to erase disadvantages faced by same-sex couples compared to heterosexual de facto couples. Better to use the actual amendment act, but cool! However, in 2004, both houses of federal parliament passed an amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), adding “marriage is between one man and one woman” in order to prevent same-sex couples from getting married since the specification had not been explicitly stated in the Act previously. These little extra tidbits of fact are good, but be careful to keep the focus on analysis and evaluation. These are good, but you don't need them. In both 2005 and 2012, bills seeking to dissolve the 2004 amendment were voted down in both houses of parliament. A 2012, ABC News Article [“Lower House votes down same-sex marriage bill”], only 42 MPs were reported to have supported the private members bill  in 2012, whereas 98 MPs voted against it. Good inclusion of media, but the wording there was a little sloppy.  In contrast, according to an episode of “The Project”, in 2011, a Galaxy poll reported that 67% of Australians were in favour of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, support for marriage equality has statistically being growing. According to a Sydney Morning Herald article in 2014, by Lisa Cox, “Poll shows growing support for same-sex marriage”, a Crosby Textor poll found that 72% of Australians want same-sex marriage legalised”. This shows a lack of accurate representation of the public’s views in parliament. Therefore, family law has been very reflective of changing values to a large extent, concerning the rights and recognition same-sex relationships. However, its ability to accurately reflect changing community values is diminished by its failure to uphold the public majority’s support for same sex marriage. These last two sentences are fantastic!! However, you can't just slap the judgement on the end, it must be threaded throughout the essay. If you had done this, your argument would have been proven extremely well. As it is, it isn't to that standard.

The issue of the care and protection of children has attracted major reform to family law and related acts in the past few decades. Children are seen by the wider community to be vulnerable members of society, and hence, require greater levels of protection. Consequently, the law has also recognised this. At a state level, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) provides for mandatory reporting to Community Services NSW (CSN); formerly known as DoCS; in cases where a child is considered to be at risk of harm. Isn't it Family and Community Services (FACS)? This operates at a domestic level as well and is heavily linked to family law in epitomising the safety of children. However, despite this, many cases of child deaths continue to occur. According to the Sydney Morning Herald [“DOCS didn’t protect Kiesha”: Tim Barlass: 2013], in 2011, A 6 year old girl, Kiesha Abrahams was repeated abused and murdered while under the care of her mother and step-father. You should try and use the R v Abrahams (2013) case reference in conjunction with the article!  However, it is reported that there had been numerous reports to DoCS [currently called Community Services NSW [CSN]] about the concerning environment in which she lived: a mother who had previously abused her. This is despite, the law’s attempts to maximise the level of care and protection given to children. For example, courts are required to take into account, the best interests of the child while making decisions regarding families, such as divorce and custody. This ensures that children are adequately cared for. However, the NSW Ombudsman’s annual report of “reviewable deaths of children” in NSW every year reveals the children’s cases known to CSN, who have died as a result of abuse or neglect. In 2007, the figure stood at, no less than 150. Despite the significant efforts of family law and related legislation, the problem of instrumental departments such as DoCS being under-resourced allows for many children to be left in abusive environments, even facing death in some cases. This drastically reduces the law’s effectiveness in protecting children. Thus, in practice, although law reform seeks to reflect changing community values concerning the care and protection of children, it isn’t able to do so effectively. Virtually identical comments to above, inclusion of cases, laws and media is awesome (though not as good as the first paragraph), but you aren't evaluating throughout. You must include a judgement at the beginning, prove it in the body, then re-state it at the end.

The law has undergone tremendous reform over the past few decades in terms of families in order to correlate with the community’s changing values and perceptions. This is particularly true in terms of the recognition of same-sex relationships as well as the care and protection of children. In the area of same-sex relationships, discrimination is still yet to be effectively curbed and the need for marriage equality is yet to be served. In the issue of the care and protection of children, family law’s effectiveness is inhibited by under-resourced departments. Therefore, to a large extent, family law has been effective in reflecting changing values of the community. However, it is still yet to keep up with these changes in current times due to flaws either in representation of the public in the legislature or the ability of the legal system to cater for its purposes effectively. Very effective conclusion, excellent!

To address your specific concerns first: Yes, there is definitely enough LCM's, and you've brought reports and statistics in as well. Golden. I'd love to see CROC make an appearance in that second paragraph!! But yes, you are fine in this area, the second paragraph could use some cases and laws if you can (visually, you can see it doesn't have as much as the first paragraph), but on the whole you are set.

The argument has an issue, but it is more structural. First, you must include a judgement in your Thesis, likely right near the end. Secondly, you must state the judgement (with respect to the area in that paragraph) of the law reform at the start of the paragraph. You then go on to prove that argument throughout the paragraph. You must be constantly evaluating and judging each new piece of information you give the reader. Every other sentence should say something like, "Thus, this shows effectiveness/ineffectiveness because ________." This ensures the argument flows through the essay and isn't just tacked on as an afterthought, which is what you have here.

Besides that, your evidence is spectacular, and your arguments are definitely there. You just need to actually say them explicitly. Sophistication is good, and although normally I'd recommend three body paragraphs instead of two I think what you have works quite well! On the whole, an excellent essay, brush up the evaluation aspect and you'll be on a winner. Great work!! 

[king_sanj]

Thanks so much for your time and effort Jamon! This feedback is super helpful 

[Deng]

Hey, was wondering if one of you guys could read my draft before its due on Monday and see where i can improve on

Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in resolving conflict in family relationships

A family is defined as the fundamental group of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” under the Family Law Act 1975(CTH)(FLA). The laws governing conflict within family relationships in Australia are relatively effective in terms of divorce and the legal consequences of separation. The law is seen to be effective in these areas due to its ability to meet society’s needs, be accessible, protecting rights and resource efficient. In contrast, the laws governing domestic violence are ineffective due to the lack of enforceability. 

Laws governing divorce in Australia reflect society’s needs with the introduction of the ‘no-fault’ concept under the FLA. The legal termination of marriage only requires parties to state that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, removing the previous need for spousal blame under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (CTH)(MCA). This law reform has proven to be effective as it improved the ease and accessibility of divorce, meaning couples were no longer trapped in unhappy or dangerous unions. It also meant custody arrangements were not affected on the grounds of one party being ‘at fault’. The effects of reform saw divorce rates in 1975    jump from 13,000 to 63,320 in 1976 .  The FLA also saw the creation of a “kiss and makeup” clause which allowed parties to reconcile without having to restart the 12 month waiting period before applying for a divorce. The clause advised couples to attend alternate dispute resolutions before attending court ensuring a better outcome for both parties and being more resource efficient. The reform of the MCA reflects the laws ability to meet society’s needs.

The FLA effectively protects the rights of children in family conflict by placing the best interest of the child first. The FLA(Sect 55A)(CTH) and the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006(CTH) reflects the FLA role through the creation of the Family Court. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) created the notion of shared parental responsibility which attempts to create meaningful relationships with both parents resolving conflicts surrounding children. Furthermore, the Court can issue parenting orders under the Family Law Reform Act 1995 (CTH) Section 60CA where the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration . This is demonstrated in in Harris v Harris(2009), where the mother requested the children live with her due to school, but under shared parental responsibility, the court issued a parenting order where the children would spend half the time at their fathers’. This reflects the laws effectiveness in resolving conflict between families surrounding children. However, under the FLA SECT60CC  , the court has the ability to determine a child’s best interest where a meaningful relationship with both parents may not exist. This was demonstrated in Lewis v Wackett where the court did not make a parenting order of shared cared when one of the parents were seen as a risks to the child thus overriding the notion . Overall, the court’s ability to determine the best interest of the child depicts its effectiveness in resolving conflict.

The Family Court has jurisdiction over property decisions under S.79 and S.75(2) of the FLA. Property is a reference to the financial aspects of a relationship which is a common cause of conflict. At the time of divorce both parties are given 12 months to settle any financial matters before the court will impose a decision. If a couple manages to reach a decision, they can have it enforced by the Court as a Consent Order. This is effective as it is resource efficient as it does not require court intervention. However, if a couple fails to reach an agreement, the court will split all assets 50/50 before taking into prior commitments such as financial position prior to marriage and contributions during marriage and future needs. The court’s ability to settle conflict surrounding property is reflected in Morre v Moore(2008), where the husband alleged the wife had failed to put in commitment towards the family and marriage, being distracted by interests outside of the family resulting in a revision of the Consent Order. The court’s role in property disputes demonstrates its effectiveness through the enforceability of its decisions.

The Court is an expensive measure thus limiting its effectiveness. An SMH article, “Australia's most expensive divorce: Woman fights $10.5m legal bill”   demonstrates how expensive litigation is. The legal system has attempted to fix this through the creation of the Family Circuit Court and Family Relationship Centres. The FCC has the same jurisdiction as the Family Court but for lesser matters, whilst the FRC is a form of ADR. This is seen as an effective way the law has attempted to be resource efficient. The efficiency of the FRC is seen in SMH article “Savings in Family Law” shows that the FRC’s are resource efficient for every $1 is equal to $1.48 in court time as well as having more cooperation between parties. The law’s increase access for families to resolve conflict reflects its ability to meet society’s needs.

In the area of domestic violence, the law has seen a decrease in its effectiveness in resolving conflict. The creation of ADVO’s through the Crimes (Domestic Violence)Amendment Act (1982)(CTH) can be seen as an ineffective measure in resolving conflict. “Call for war on domestic violence as half of all AVO’s fail”  show that “in the year to last September courts issued 26,491 domestic AVOs. According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures, there were 11,788 or 44% breaches.” . The article also highlights the increasing level of domestic violence and the laws inability to resolve this as “At the end of the day an AVO is a piece of paper” . There has been attempts to protect society through the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007(CTH), where police are now able to take out an AVO, making the recriminations against police rather than the victim. However, the statistics above show that an AVOS lack enforceability and the deterrent itself do not deter recidivism. This was seen in the recent Leila Alavi case where she was murdered despite an ADVO on her husband. Thus, the lack of enforceability of ADVO’s demonstrates the laws ineffectiveness in resolving conflict surrounding domestic violence.

Australia’s laws can be seen as effective in resolving conflict in family relationships. However, due to the increasing number of domestic violence and the decreasing effectiveness of the legislation surrounding it, it limits the effectiveness. The law deals with divorce and the legal separation of marriage effectively and efficiently, however the price of litigation can deny some families access.

Thanks!