Family Intervention Order Consultation
The client is involved in a complex legal situation where both parties are breaching a Family Intervention Order (FIVO) in Victoria, while continuing to live together as a family unit. The respondent initially sought an Intervention Order due to financial issues, leading to the filing of the current FIVO by the protected party due to concerns about safety. Despite these orders, both parties maintain a cooperative environment, with the respondent providing financial support and childcare while residing separately in the same home. The protected party occasionally threatens to utilize the intervention order for leverage, but has not proceeded with further legal action. The situation is under review for potential options to revoke or alter the order.
Questions about this case
These answers have been verified by a lawyer in the LEAP networkWhat are the legal implications for both parties given that they are breaching the family intervention order by residing together?
Breaching a Family Intervention Order (FIVO) by living together can lead to serious legal consequences for both parties since such orders are enforceable. Each violation of the order could result in criminal charges or penalties, irrespective of the lack of aggression. The court views these breaches seriously, and it is crucial for the parties to consider seeking a legal resolution to avoid further repercussions.
How can the respondent apply to have the family intervention order revoked or varied, and what evidence would be necessary to support such an application?
To apply for revocation or modification of a Family Intervention Order (FIVO), the respondent must submit an application to the appropriate court detailing any changes in circumstances since the order was issued. Important evidence may include records of peaceful cohabitation and child care arrangements. Legal assistance may enhance the chances of a successful application.
What potential defenses might the respondent have if accused of breaching the family intervention order, considering the circumstances of financial and child care dependence?
The respondent may defend their actions by arguing necessity or consensual arrangements, citing financial dependence and child care obligations that require coexistence. Their cooperative behavior could factor significantly in court considerations.
What are the potential consequences if the protected person continues to threaten the use of the family intervention order as leverage without actual aggression involved?
Using a family intervention order inappropriately may lead to claims of abuse of the legal system, potentially impacting future legal outcomes and possibly resulting in counterclaims by the respondent.
Are there alternative legal measures that can be put in place to regulate the living situation given the ongoing cooperation of both parties, such as a mutual undertaking or consent order?
Considering the cooperation between the parties, options like mutual undertakings or consent orders could be beneficial. Such arrangements can help formalize agreed terms and provide a less adversarial resolution than a family intervention order.
