compliance??? (1 Viewer)

[Mays]

ok just a quick question... i dont understand this compliance and non-compliance? whats that about this refers to 2003 question on family

‘Compliance with the law is necessary to achieve justice for all.’
Evaluate this statement in relation to issues of compliance and non-compliance
for family members.

​

thank you in advance

 

[DaRanjed]

Does compliance mean how well the law reflects society's views?

I'm not sure.

*waiting for someone to answer*

 

[trickpat23]

Seeming they used it last year they probably wont do it again but now i've said that they'll use it again for sure just to spite me. Dam Board of Studies.

But back to the point it has all got to do with society agreeing with and primary resolution stuff in regards to family cause if that happens (ie the family uses some sort of non-judicial means to work 'it' out) the procces is usually more effective

 

[overthaedge]

Non-compliance is like the factors affecting criminal behaviour, like social, economic, genetic etc. You've also got to talk about the extent to which the law reflects moral and ethical standards. So in relation to family members, I guess you'd mention how compliance with the law tends not to occur when there are changing values in society, so how de facto relationships are more widely accepted, and how that leads to new circumstances e.g. the case of Kevin. Also, as the adversarial system in family law is highly integrated with emotions, it tends not to be as effective when complying with the law. Thus to prevent non-compliance theres mediation, and the germination of the federal magistrates service.

Hmm, reading over that its slightly confusing, but your basically twisting the words around to suit the question, and incorporating words such as compliance and non compliance whilst your at it. I hope that helps slightly.

 

[overthaedge]

Does compliance mean how well the law reflects society's views?

I'm not sure.

*waiting for someone to answer*

Yeah to an extent, like if the law reflects society's views well, it'd mean more people would be complying with the law as it fits with their moral and ethical standards. So when the need for law reform arises, then you'd have to assume, theres more non-compliance within a certain part of the law.

I guess.

 

[timrie6]

compliance with the law, meaning obeying the law..
non-compliance...not obeying.

 

[Mays]

thanks.... no wasnt confusing i understand....

that question has been bugging me all day...
ps i have the cold and im so sick... great timing *sniffs*

 

[digmahstigma]

id use advos, and child maintenancy payments etc. for family law. theres probably a few others too.

 

[kelboo]

Compliance is people obeying the provisions set in place for them by a tribunal, court or mediator. This is especially relevant when you are talking about sanctions to do with AVOs and the Child Support Scheme - (you MUST go on about this one )
Obviously non-compliance therefore calls for law reform. Ten years ago, men paying their ex-spouses child support was a shockingly low statistic, so various amendments were enacted (can't remember them all right now ) in order to combat this.

The law can be deemed moderately effective in relation to this, because the new statistics are a vast improvement on those previous. In this circumstance at least, the law has changed according to society's views (and the instance of fewer marriages, same sex marriages hence the Property Relationships Act 1984 & amendment 1999) and thus the ability of the law to at least partially mould itself into the changing face of our society outlines this effectiveness (at least in relation to child support).

Sorry for the vague whimsical statistics and other shit, but I just woke up. *yawns* - hope this all helps. I'm actually going to read over my notes now