Robin Slade Jones is the founder member of BrisbaneChambers. He is a specialist barrister and mediator with nearly 30 years’ experience in family law and child protection. He is a nationally accredited mediator under the National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS) and is also a registered Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner (FDRP).
Soon after being called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1993 by The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn, Robin dedicated his practice to family law and child protection. In England and Wales he appeared in the Magistrates’ Courts, the County Courts, the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.
In January 2002, Robin was admitted to the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Queensland. He appears in both the commonwealth (family law, children) and State Courts (child protection) where he represents parents, children, government bodies, and those specialist children’s solicitors who represent the best interests of children (Independent Children’s Lawyers and Separate Representatives).
He is now able to practice in both Australia and in England and Wales.
Over his many, many years of experience, Robin has developed extensive experience in some of the most challenging and sensitive aspects of family law and child protection such as complex proceedings involving child sexual abuse, non-accidental injuries and deaths of children including enclosed head injuries (“shaken baby”) cases, and so-called factitious or induced illness cases in children (including ground glass and contaminated breast milk). He has also appeared in both Australia and in England and Wales for Central Authorities and parents alike in Hague Convention applications.
Robin is a founder member of the Child Protection Practitioners Association of Queensland (CPPAQ) and is a member of the Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland (FLPA).
He has presented many papers with his colleagues and with members of the judiciary in both his chosen areas of specialisation (and on the unhelpfully tenuous link between the two!).
He has written for LexisNexis as a legal expert.
Robin also holds a first Master’s degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and, before becoming a barrister, was an engineer. In 2002 he spent 18 months heading a team within Queensland Government developing its Whole of Government Information Security Strategy. And most importantly of all, he’s a dad to two wonderful children.
E [email protected]
T 07 3181 5578
M 0423 778 567
W www.brisbanechambers.com
Lewis v Director of Child Protection Litigation & Ors [2018] QChC 22
Where children had been placed in the care of the paternal grandparents by the Chief Executive and where the Childrens Court granted the DCPL leave to withdraw its application after an interim order had been made in favour of the grandparents in the Federal Circuit Court.
KE & SW v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2011] QChC 2
Where a long-term order was not in the child’s best interests – where there was “some evidence” of improved relations between the child and her parents and that with increased contact that “could well” continue to improve as the child ages – where “things may change” – where the appellate court was “not convinced” that the mother in particular is not able to learn how to interact and care for the child within the foreseeable future – where the appellate court was not satisfied that the child’s need for emotional security was best met by making a long-term order.
Vargas & Clarke [2016] FamCAFC 6
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the appellant appeals against orders dismissing his application for a variation of final parenting orders – Where the appellant asserted the findings and final orders made by the judge who heard the initial trial were wrong and thus the trial judge here erred by relying on those findings – Where the appellant did not appeal against the final orders and it is not open to the appellant to challenge those final orders in this appeal – Where the appellant asserted that the rule in “Rice and Asplund” did not apply because of what the judge who made the final orders said – Where the appellant misunderstood what was said by that judge and the effect of that – Where the rule in Rice and Asplund still applies – Where there was no error by the trial judge – Appeal dismissed.
Beckham & Desprez [2015] FamCAFC 247
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where it was not in issue that an equal time arrangement was not reasonably practicable, it was unnecessary to consider whether such an arrangement would have been in the child’s best interests – where there is there is no requirement to consider s65DAA(1)(a) and s65DAA(1)(b) in any particular order – where an Order that a parent not consume alcohol “in excess of the legal limit” when the child is in his care is unenforceable.
Clark & McCall [2011] FamCAFC 194
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – with whom a child should live – appeal against orders made by a Federal Magistrate that provided for the child to live with the father in Australia once the mother moved to Canada – where the Full Court found that the Federal Magistrate’s decision was within the proper exercise of his discretion – no appealable error established – appeal dismissed.
Donaldson & Ryder [2017] FamCA 920
Milburn & Milburn [2017] FamCA 490
Heston & Norton and Ors [2017] FamCA 154
Frederick & Frederick (No. 2) [2016] FamCA 726
Barrakat & Barrakat [2016] FamCA 953
Watson & Burton [2015] FamCA 549
Snell & Snell and Ors (No. 5) [2015] FamCA 420
Falcone & Falcone (No.2) [2016] FCCA 1274
Barristers