Essay with Feedback
To what extent has law reform been effective in dealing with contemporary issues concerning family members?
The law has been highly effective in initiating changes to maximise the care and protection of children, including changing the nature of parental responsibility in order to achieve this. Nice and direct Thesis to answer the question!! You could make it more sophisticated by saying WHY it is important to deal with the issue. You could also follow it up by saying the "most effective ways encourage cooperation," to link to that extra theme you specified. However, the legal system has largely failed to introduce laws that adequately address the issues surrounding the use of birth technologies and the conduct of surrogacy. Similarly with the recognition of same-sex relationships, the government implements new changes to grant couples more rights. To a large extent, the legal system has only been somewhat effective in dealing with contemporary issues in family law. Nice Thesis! Sets up the varying views you will take on the contemporary issues - As aforementioned, I'd like to see you add something at the start to set up the argument, rather than jumping straight into "This works, this doesn't."
Reforms have to a large extent, been successful in ensuring that the care and protection of children are of paramount importance. The influence of the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) 1989 can be seen through its ratification in the Family Law Reform Act 1995 (Cth). In making these legislative changes, Family Courts make considered decisions based on the ‘best interests of the child,’ hence increasing their level of protection, domestically. Nice link of the treaty to domestic law - Excellent! Again you could say to "achieve cooperative outcomes" to link to that other theme. However, as evident in the case of R v BW and SW, parents faced imprisonment due to the neglect and starvation of their daughter Ebony and while the law was enforced, it highlighted that the law has failed to protect the child. In a similar case seen in The Australian’s 2007 article ‘Starved Shellay’s death of torture’, the Department of Community Services (DoCS) was aware of Shellay’s welfare as far back as 2004 but failed to take further measures which highlights that the law failed significantly in protecting childrens’ safety. Furthermore, in 2007, it was found that more than 150 children who had previously been known to DoCS died at the hands of their abusive parents. Do you have a source for this? It would increase your credibility. This called for major reforms to not only increase child care and protection, but also to introduce an enforceable ‘follow-up’ mechanism that will enable DoCS or other services to regularly monitor children ‘at risk of significant harm.’ The Wood Inquiry Report 2008 came about as a result of these highly publicised deaths, and the government was highly responsive in reforming the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) to become the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Act 2009. What specific benefits did this bring about? In the same year, the NSW government further introduced the Keep Them Safe (KTS) scheme, a five year plan to improve the quantity and accessibility of early intervention services. As highlighted in the KTS Outcomes Evaluation Final Report, this scheme was highly effective in reducing the number of reports of children ‘at risk of significant harm.’ This short term success limits the scheme’s effectiveness, but nevertheless, KTS has provided a platform for future improvements in child care and protection by making early intervention services much more accessible. Fantastic analysis - You are considering things carefully and not just using blanket terms. Thus, while the legal system has been highly responsive towards these issues, its effectiveness is hindered by the difficult nature in suspecting and reporting a child at risk of harm. EXCELLENT paragraph - A heap of relevant evidence, all of which is linked to effectiveness. Nicely done.
The existing laws governing the area of surrogacy and birth technologies are highly unregulated and ineffective; hence there is a strong need for reforms that protect all members involved in the process. Fabulous. The Law and Justice Committee submitted the ‘Legislation on Altruistic Surgery in NSW (2009) report which effectively brought to attention the need for clearer surrogacy laws, hence bringing about the introduction of the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW). While this act made overseas commercial surrogacy illegal, it has failed to a large extent due to its lack of enforceability. Excellent. As highlighted in The Conversation’s 2014 article ‘Making commercial surrogacy illegal only makes aspiring parents go elsewhere,’ it questioned the purpose of the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) since despite it being a criminal offense to engage in commercial surrogacy, “not a single couple has been prosecuted or convicted.” Hence, not only has the law failed to be enforceable, it has also created inequality between couples who can afford the process and those who cannot. Excellent analysis of this issue. This is largely due to the absence of explicit federal laws which makes it very difficult for legal bodies to regulate the conduct of surrogacy and use of birth technologies. Furthermore, Surrogacy Australia’s president Sam Everingham calls altruistic surrogacy in Australia a “legal nightmare,” thus forcing Australians to seek overseas procedures due to the inaccessible arrangements onshore. This point seems a little backwards, forcing Australians overseas because of inaccessible offshore arrangements? Just a little unclear. As evident in the SMH 2012 article ‘Hundreds pay for overseas surrogacy,’ only nineteen children were born in Australia under regulated altruistic surrogacy arrangements. Despite increasing media attention in this area, legal bodies are yet to introduce effective reforms that will protect the rights of each party involved in the complicated process. Excellent analysis (though be careful not to introduce the idea of "rights of parties" this late into the essay - Keep it at evaluating effectiveness with criteria like "accessibility", "enforceability" (etc) as you are doing already. Keep focused!!
There has been increasing reforms that have successfully granted same-sex couples more legal rights. Prior to 1984 when the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1984 (NSW) was introduced; homosexual sexual activity was a criminal offense due to Christian and Catholic beliefs held by the majority of Australians. In the same year, the Relationships Act 1983 (NSW) was renamed the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) to recognize same-sex couples as de facto couples, thus granting them access to the legal system. I'd say, "thus granting them the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples, such as _____, _____, and _____." Or something. However, this amendment proved to be ineffective in the case of Howard v Andrews (1999) as while a heterosexual de facto partner can inherit his/her deceased partner’s estate , Howard was unable to since he was in a homosexual relationship. Thus there is an absence of equality despite being guided under the same law that applies to heterosexual couples. Instead, Howard applied under the Family Provisions Act (1982) as a deserving beneficiary who had been financially and emotionally dependent on his deceased partner. While he was successful, he was still granted significantly less than what a heterosexual partner would have automatically inherited, hence emphasising that reform has a large extent, failed to be accessible. Nice analysis of this case study. However, it was due to this case which saw the enactment of the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999 (NSW) that gave same-sex couples automatic inheritance of his/her deceased partner’s estate. In doing this, the legal system has been highly responsive to recognize and socially accept same-sex relationships as a modern family structure. I feel like the analysis in this paragraph lacks a bit of direction - You spend a solid chunk proving ineffectiveness then jump to effectiveness and at the end it's "highly responsive" - Perhaps reframe your analysis of the Howard case to be the catalyst for effective change? Since everything else seems to be on effectiveness, it just seems a little out of place right now.
While the recognition of same-sex relationships have increased significantly, same-sex marriage is still an area where reforms have become stagnated, leading to inequality. The conflicting views between the groups such as Australian Christian Lobby and Gay and Lesbian Rights, have largely contributed to the difficulty of legalising same-sex marriage as laws need to reflect the views of society. Yet in 2009, the lobby group Australia Marriage Equality conducted a survey to find that more than 60% of Australians supported same-sex marriage. Despite this, the fact that the government has not responded to these majority views shows that they have failed to adapt to these changing community values. Nice use of survey statistics. At the same time, it can be argued that the participants of this survey were imbalanced in the numbers of people who supported or opposed same-sex marriage. I'd take this sentence out - Stick to just using the statistics as is. Don't introduce doubt into your own evidence. Following this survey however, the NSW government enacted the Relationships Register Act 2010 (NSW) which achieved greater equality as it allowed same-sex couples to register their relationship, thus granting them access to the legal system if the relationship broke down. Excellent. Overall, the legal system has to a moderate extent been successful in consistently responding to the inequality felt by same-sex couples by enacting new laws that grant them legal rights similar to those available to heterosexual couples. Nice punchy paragraph - If you manipulated things a little you could perhaps blend these last two paragraphs together!
. Definitely in the Band 6 range, fantastic evidence, fantastic analysis - My comments throughout are nitpicks, because you've done a wonderful job!
I think there are places where your writing could be more succinct, or your arguments a little more direct, but those aren't issues to worry about with your exam so close - Those are long term things. It's an incredible essay nonetheless.
As for adapting the essay to the cooperation theme, the first paragraph should be easy for that. Just talk about how cooperation is key to recognising the children. For homosexuality paragraphs, talk about how cooperation between GLBTI Rights lobbies, conservative lobbies, and the lawmakers is essential to effective reforms. Surrogacy is the tough one - I'm not quite sure how that will fit - It might require just addressing different ideas?
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 185223 times)