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.