Miranda Kaye is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law.
Miranda studied law at Cambridge and Oxford universities before working at the Law Commission of England & Wales in their family law team. She qualified as a solicitor and practised Family law in London. Miranda then came to Australia and taught in the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney. After a career break, Miranda joined UTS as a Research Associate and Family law lecturer in 2013.
Miranda's main area of expertise is Family law. In particular she is interested in the intersections of criminal law and family law and health law and family law. Miranda also has teaching expertise in health law.
Member, Law | Health | Justice Area of Research Excellence, UTS:Law
- Family Court processes
- Mental health in the Family Court
- Complementary medicine and the law
- Family Law
- Health Law
In March 2019, the Australian Law Reform Commission final report, Family Law for the Future, was released. The report made 60 wide-ranging recommendations. However, there is not one recommendation directly dealing with the safety of court users in the report. This article considers that cases involving family violence are the ‘new’ normal in the Australian family courts and the standard mode of operation in the court should prioritise safety in the court system. As such, the lack of focus of safety in the recent Australian Law Reform Commission final report is extremely disappointing. The article draws upon interviews with children’s lawyers to provide the context of how the courts are currently experienced in relation to safety. In particular, the article considers the facilities for the protection of victims of violence within the court precincts and the availability of modified arrangements in court for giving evidence for victims of violence.
Kaye, M 2019, 'The increasing demands on the role of children's lawyers in family law proceedings in Australia', Child and Family Law Quarterly, vol. 2019, no. 2, pp. 143-163.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
In Australia, lawyers are appointed by courts to represent a child’s best interests in private family law disputes. They are generally appointed in cases at the more complex end of the family law spectrum. As the complexity of matters in the family court system has increased, the caseload of children’s lawyers is also becoming more complex and their role has expanded This paper examines the ramifications for a family law system that has become more reliant on children’s lawyers despite research highlighting concerns about the capacity and quality of some children’s lawyers. This article draws on the author’s small‐scale qualitative study of the perceptions of children’s lawyers particularly in relation to cases involving family violence and self‐represented litigants to explore the strains placed on their role. I suggest that judges will continue to increasingly rely on children’s lawyers who are being placed more in the role of “Counsel Assisting the court” as opposed to acting as the child’s representative.
Booth, T, Kaye, M & Wangmann, J 2019, 'Family Violence, Cross-Examination and Self-Represented Parties in the Courtroom: The Differences, Gaps and Deficiencies', The University of New South Wales law journal, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1106-1142.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Since the early 2000s, the ability of a self-represented litigant (SRL) alleged to have used domestic and family violence including sexual violence to personally cross-examine the alleged victim of that violence has been steadily restricted or prohibited across the Australian jurisdictions. These statutory limitations recognise the traumatic and negative impact such personal cross-examination can have on the alleged victim. All Australian jurisdictions restrict such personal cross-examination in sexual offence proceedings. Many jurisdictions also impose similar limitations in proceedings for other domestic and family violence related criminal proceedings and civil protection order proceedings. This article reveals a marked unevenness in protection for alleged victims however both across and within jurisdictions. The lack of consistency in approach and lack of uniformity in provisions across the jurisdictions means that not all victims of domestic and family violence are protected, and for those who are, the nature and extent of those protections differ.
Sibbritt, D, Kaye, MH, Millbank, J, Stuhmcke, AG, Wardle, J & Karpin, IA 2018, 'How are complementary health professions regulated in Australia? An examination of complementary health professions in the national registration and accreditation scheme', Complementary Therapies in Medicine, vol. 37, pp. 6-12.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Objectives: This study aims to provide an empirical examination of how complementary medicine practice in Australia is actually regulated under the current national registration model.
Methods: Data was obtained from Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) Annual Reports for the years 2011/12–2014/15 and supplemented by the Chinese Medical Registration Board of Victoria
(CMRBV) Annual Reports in 2011/12 for Chinese Medicine complaints. The data analysed includes complaint statistics, stage of closure of complaints and the outcome of complaints concerning Chinese medicine, chiropractic and osteopathy under the National Law.
Results: During 2014–2015 the number of complaints per 100 registrants for was highest for the medical board (4.4), while much lower for the chiropractic (1.5), osteopath (0.7) and Chinese medicine (0.5) boards. For
conventional boards, 58% of complaints were closed at the assessment stage, while 57%, 29% and 16% of complaints to the osteopath, Chinese medicine and chiropractic boards respectively were closed at the assessment stage. The decision to suspend or cancel registration of health professionals was 17% from the Chinese medicine board, 14% from the Osteopathy Board, 1.5% from the chiropractor board and 0.6% from the medical board.
Conclusion: It appears that complementary medicine practitioner regulation works at least as well as conventional regulation, and at most complementary medicine boards take a stricter interpretation of misconduct though more research would need to be undertaken to state this definitively. Our findings indicate that the public are using the statutory complaint mechanisms available to them with respect to the three CM groups.
This article examines the impact of the new ‘No Jab, No Pay’ and ‘No Jab, No Play’ laws on future Family Court disputes between parents in relation to immunisation of children. The article reviews previous disputes in relation to immunisation, looking particularly at what evidence has been required by the court in disputes and how the courts have formulated the best interests of the child in these disputes. Given that most cases result in orders for immunisation of children, the article recommends that such cases should be settled without lengthy litigation, but recognises that the entrenched views of the parties in these disputes prevent settlement.
Millbank, J, Kaye, M, Stuhmcke, A, Sibbritt, D, Karpin, I & Wardle, J 2017, 'Complementary health practitioners disciplined for misconduct in Australia 2010-2016', Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 788-802.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
This article examines disciplinary proceedings brought against complementary
medicine (CM) practitioners in Australia at tribunal level since the
inception of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The article looks
at all 32 such cases and identifies trends in the kinds of misconduct
established, and the orders imposed.These findings are compared with earlier
and more sizable studies of tribunal-level outcomes for disciplinary proceedings
against doctors in Australia and New Zealand. While there are some clear
comparisons – such as the gender ratio of respondent practitioners and the
most common type of misconduct, ie sexual misconduct – there were also
notable differences. Specifically, the rate of removal from practice, either by
suspension or cancellation of registration, of CM practitioners was found to be
significantly higher than that reported in earlier studies of cases against
doctors. More research needs to be done to explore the reasons for this
Kaye, M, Wangmann, J & Booth, T 2017, 'Preventing personal cross-examination of parties in Family Law proceedings involving family violence', Australian journal of family law, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 94-117.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Sibbritt, J. 2016, 'The failure of contemporary law and regulation to keep pace with growing complementary medicine (CM) use: The significance of examining 'hidden' gaps in Australia's current regulatory and legislative infrastructure'', Advances in Integrative Medicine, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 43-44.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Kaye, M, Stubbs, J & Tolmie, J 2003, 'Domestic Violence, Separation and Parenting: Negotiating Safety Using Legal Processes', Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 73-94.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Kaye, M 1999, 'The Hague convention and the flight from domestic violence: how women and children are being returned by coach and four', International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 191-212.View/Download from: Publisher's site
Kaye, MH 1998, 'Discoursing Dads: The Rhetorical Devices of Fathers' Rights Groups', Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 162-194.
Kaye, MH 1998, 'Father's rights groups in Australia and their engagement with issues in family law', Australian journal of family law, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 19-67.
Kaye, MH 1998, ''Lollies at a children's party' and other Myths: Violence, Protection orders and fathers' rights groups', Current Issues in Criminal Justice -Sydney-, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 52-72.
Humphreys, C & Kaye, M 1997, 'Third-party applications for protection orders: Opportunities, ambiguities and traps', Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 403-421.View/Download from: Publisher's site
The Family Law Act 1996 allows for the possibility of third parties applying for protection orders‘ in situations of domestic violence. This paper employs a feminist perspective to explore the potential benefits and hazards of this practice, particularly when the police are the third-party applicants. The Australian experience of similar legislative provisions is drawn upon to highlight issues which might arise in England and Wales. Consultation with domestic violence workers in a wide range of agencies as well as documentary evidence from reports and research provided general endorsement of the practice. However. there remain contentious issues which suggest that caution is required before transporting legislation and practices from one jurisdiction to another. © 1996 Routledge.
Kaye, MH 1996, 'Domestic violence, residence and contact', Child and Family Law Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 285-296.
Kaye, M 2018, 'The Impact of Self-representation in Family Law Proceedings involving family violence - the Perspective of Independent Children's Lawyers', Australian Institute of Family Studies conference, Melbourne.
Kaye, M 2018, 'The Perspectives of Independent Children’s Lawyers on Family Law Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants where there are Allegations of Violence', Law and Society Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference 2018: Inclusion, Exclusion and Democracy, University of Wollongong.
Kaye, M 2018, 'Radio interview on Family Court merger proposal on Melbourne 3CR', 3CR.
Kaye, M 2018, 'Submission to ALRC Family Law Review Issues Paper No.48. Submission 215.'.
he proposed merger of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court is intended to address delays and inefficiencies in the system. Experts question, however, how effective the reforms will be.
Kaye, M, Booth, T & Wangmann, J 2018, 'Submission on Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018'.
Kaye, M 2017, 'Submission to Parliamentary inquiry into how the family law system should be improved to better support and protect those affected by family violence'.
Kaye, M, 'Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Review of the Family Law System Discussion Paper. Submission No. 296.'.