the point then is not that an SRL cannot cross examine, in fact an SLR can indeed cross examine, perhaps provided the judge is satisfied they know and will follow the rules. In the actual case (whether you believe it or not),the judge restricted her cross with the warning about friendly parent, even though he had done no such thing to restrict the SR father. Each judge/magistrate/JR has the command of their court, and can be as different in what they expect as chalk and cheese, and change according to the case before them.

Making cracks about my nephew might make you seem powerful in your mind, but it's just irrelevent to us, since you seem only interested in poor men hard-luck stories, no matter how trivial they may seem by comparison, they are life to the people involved.

Jacksun:"an SLR can indeed cross examine, perhaps provided the judge is satisfied they know and will follow the rules"

Yes, that is correct. It is not common, but it can occur. Normally a Judge would prefer to rely on affidavits and the examination of the parties by expert third parties.

The following may be instructive
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2001/348.html

" 1. A judge should ensure as far as is possible that procedural fairness is afforded to all parties whether represented or appearing in person in order to ensure a fair trial;

2. A judge should inform the litigant in person of the manner in which the trial is to proceed, the order of calling witnesses and the right which he or she has to cross examine the witnesses;

3. A judge should explain to the litigant in person any procedures relevant to the litigation;

4. A judge should generally assist the litigant in person by taking basic information from witnesses called, such as name, address and occupation;

5. If a change in the normal procedure is requested by the other parties such as the calling of witnesses out of turn the judge may, if he/she considers that there is any serious possibility of such a change causing any injustice to a litigant in person, explain to the unrepresented party the effect and perhaps the undesirability of the interposition of witnesses and his or her right to object to that course;

6. A judge may provide general advice to a litigant in person that he or she has the right to object to inadmissible evidence, and to inquire whether he or she so objects. A judge is not obliged to provide advice on each occasion that particular questions or documents arise;

7. If a question is asked, or evidence is sought to be tendered in respect of which the litigant in person has a possible claim of privilege, to inform the litigant of his or her rights;

[cont]

8. A judge should attempt to clarify the substance of the submissions of the litigant in person, especially in cases where, because of garrulous or misconceived advocacy, the substantive issues are either ignored, given little attention or obfuscated. (Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148 at 150);

9. Where the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case require it, a judge may:
• draw attention to the law applied by the Court in determining issues before it;
• question witnesses;
• identify applications or submissions which ought to be put to the Court;
• suggest procedural steps that may be taken by a party;
• clarify the particulars of the orders sought by a litigant in person or the bases for such orders.
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive and there may well be other interventions that a judge may properly make without giving rise to an apprehension of bias."

Jacksun:"even though he had done no such thing to restrict the SR father. "

That's not what your mother said. She said:"in one case mum was the SRL, and the judge warned her before her cross of the father 'Be very careful lest i decide you are an unfriendly parent'. ". She didn't mention anything about the father being an SRL, just the mother, so I think you're doing your favourite thing and telling lies.

Besides, even if you were unusually telling the truth there would be nothing wrong in the judge's actions according to Johnson Vs Johnson.

As always, hysteria and victimology doesn't make for good analysis.

What you, Anti, really meant to simply say then, was 'sorry, yes, i wasn't full enough in my dripping disbelief about SLr cross examining. I was wrong. You were right, they can do it, according to strict guidelines and assistance from the judge.

I accept your hidden apology and am so releived to be able to go back to believing what i saw with my own eyes, rather than what you said. (In court with non-existent sister that day, waiting for her case, FM court).

I also understand even more about your need to be dominant and right, and even when you are not, you still must demean in losing. Mum could indeed have used the worlds 'one of the two SLR's instead of focussing only on that SLR's ordeal. Perhaps some judges behave quite differenly to the Rules, and where there are two SLR's perhaps the behaviour varies again.

You, Antiseptic, are an example of exactly the sort of person causing the exasperation and eventual just walking away that drives many to divorce. And in this way, 'I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee and it is done.

Jacksun before you divorce anti, maybe you two should try some relationhsip counselling. ;0, ;)

Jacksun:"Perhaps some judges behave quite differenly to the Rules,"

And perhaps there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but I'd not be betting that way.

Now, off you toddle, I'm sire you've got lots more stuff to make up.