VIC Which Act would apply Children's or Family Law?

[Familylaw101]

Hi,

A family friend of mine received a letter from Children's services today stating the children were under their care and under the guide/or provisions of S166 of the Children's, Youth and Families Act 2005.

Person A (family friend) is also battling person B in the family circuit court relating to allegations made by the children regarding person B.

Now what I want to know is, does the Children's youth and families act 2005 work together with the Family Law act 1975 or does it clash?

Under the Children's, youth and families act 2005 with what person A received that I have also read it seems like for 12 months it has a plan in place for the children and If person B would like to see their children they must first get permission from children's services.

I always assumed a Commonwealth law would override a state law unless there are provisions somewhere.

Thanks in advance.

 

[CSFLW]

A family friend of mine received a letter from Children's services today stating the children were under their care and under the guide/or provisions of S166 of the Children's, Youth and Families Act 2005.[/QUOTE]

Hi Familylaw

Without seeing the letter (it could be an order) from Children's Services (maybe DHHS?) it is hard to advise you.

In general terms, however, if DHHS become involved and get an order from the Children's Court, or seek an order relating to the care of the children, this will over ride any orders made by the Federal Circuit Court.

If you need more advice (no charge) send your contact details to [email protected].

 

[Rod]

I always assumed a Commonwealth law would override a state law unless there are provisions somewhere.

In most situations this is true.

However the Family Law Act has provisions that ensure a child's safety comes first and if action under a State law take place after Family/FCC court orders this State based action can override federal orders.

Not a straightforward situation.

 

[Scruff]

I always assumed a Commonwealth law would override a state law unless there are provisions somewhere.

This is correct (it's a provision in the Commonwealth Constitution) but it only applies to the law itself.

The situation you describe is not so much about the law (actual legislation), but the "consequences of law" which is a different thing. While the actions of authorities or rulings of courts etc may appear to be in conflict with each other, that rarely means that there is a direct conflict between the laws themselves. It is usually an indication of how the application of the laws in question can produce various results depending on circumstance, which is a "consequence of law" and not a "conflict of law".