凡是打算向澳洲联邦巡回及家事法院(FCFCOA)申请子女抚养令的家长,几乎都会在某个环节被告知:”你需要一份 60I 证书。”但很少有人被告知这份证书究竟是什么、谁有资格签发,以及为什么它不可能仅凭书面材料就拿到。
什么是 60I 证书?
根据《1975年家庭法》(Cth)第 60I 条,除非申请人提交由注册家庭纠纷调解员(FDRP)签发的证书,或符合法定豁免情形,否则法院不得受理子女抚养令的申请。
这份证书不是判决,它不记录谁有理。它记录的是:当双方被邀请尝试家庭纠纷调解时,实际发生了什么。本质上,它是一道门槛——立法机关借此要求分居父母在动用法院资源之前,先真诚地尝试一次协商解决。
只有在联邦 FDR 注册名册上的调解员才有资格签发。律师、心理咨询师或未注册的私人调解员,无论经验多丰富,都不能签发。
五种证书
第 60I(8) 条规定了五类证书。调解员并非在其中自由挑选,类别由事实决定。
- (a) 当事人未出席,但原因在于对方拒绝或未能出席。
- (aa) 当事人未出席,因为调解员评估认为根本不宜进行该项调解。
- (b) 当事人出席,且所有出席者均作出了真诚努力。
- (c) 当事人出席,但一方或多方未作出真诚努力。
- (d) 调解已开始,但调解员评估认为不宜继续。
家长常以为任何一种证书效力都一样,其实不然。(b) 类证书向法院传递的信息,与 (c) 类截然不同;法院在考虑诉讼费用承担时,可能会将一方是否作出真诚努力纳入考量。
哪些情形根本不需要证书?
第 60I(9) 条列出了豁免情形。概括而言,以下情况无需提交证书:申请同意令(consent orders);法院有合理理由认定存在虐待儿童或家庭暴力,或存在此类风险;事项具有紧急性;一方因行为能力欠缺、地理位置偏远难以接触调解服务或其他原因而无法有效参与;以及在命令作出后十二个月内提出的某些违令申请。
这些豁免经常被误读。家庭暴力豁免尤其不是”打个勾”就能成立的——法院必须基于合理理由形成认定,仅在誓章中作出空泛主张未必足够。
五个常见误解
一、对方拒绝参加,并不等于您可以跳过这一步
这是我们见得最多的错误。当事人见前伴侣断然拒绝调解,便以为可以直接起诉,在誓章中说明对方拒绝即可。法院的立场并非如此:当对方不愿参与时,正确的做法是取得一份记录该拒绝的调解员证书,而不是绕开整个证书制度。“拒绝参与”与”无法参与”是两回事,只有后者才触发豁免。
二、证书不可能仅凭书面材料签发
自 2025 年 4 月 1 日起,《2025年家庭法(家庭纠纷调解员)条例》已取代 2008 年旧条例。新条例第 24 条要求调解员必须至少两次联系未出席方,其中至少一次为书面联系,提供合理的会议时间选择,并告知其不出席的后果。
这项义务落在调解员身上。贵方律师数月来的去信固然是有价值的证据,在其他环节也有用处,但无法代替调解员履行其职责。调解员必须自行执行并记录整个邀约过程。请预留数周时间。
三、证书有十二个月的有效期
调解员不得在当事人最后一次出席(或尝试出席)调解十二个月之后签发证书;证书也必须在十二个月内提交法院。先拿到证书、再花一年时间尝试协商,是一个常见且代价不菲的错误。
四、调解本身值得认真对待
很多人把家庭纠纷调解当作通往法院路上的一道障碍。以我们的经验,这种心态付出的代价远高于节省的成本。走到终审的子女抚养案件动辄耗时两年,所花费的金额足以支付十年学费。一场由真正了解该家庭的调解员主持、各方诚意参与的会议,往往能解决远超预期的问题。
五、房间之外的压力,如今已被明文纳入考量
根据 2025 年新条例,调解员在评估是否适宜进行调解时,必须考虑任何人——不论该人是否为当事方——的不当偏颇或影响,是否妨碍了一方自由协商的能力。对于祖辈或大家庭在子女事务上具有决定性话语权的家庭而言,这一条意义重大。
当找不到另一方家长时
这种情况比一般人想象的更常见,尤其是在一方已返回海外的情形下。这并非无解,但也不会自动落入豁免范围。调解员需要取得该失联家长所有已知的联系方式,并就每一项自行执行邀约程序;结果通常是 (a) 类证书,或在调解员认定无法适当进行调解时签发 (aa) 类证书。处于这一处境的家长,还需考虑文书送达问题——那是另一个独立的难题,有其自身的解决途径。
我們能提供的協助
蔡智勋律师是注册家庭纠纷调解员(FDRP)、全国认证调解员及家事法仲裁员,以中英双语主持家庭纠纷调解,在墨尔本面对面进行,亦可在全澳范围内线上进行。本所同时代理家长处理子女抚养诉讼,并在多个司法管辖区的调解员名册上任职。
如您希望了解家庭纠纷调解是否适合您的案件,或安排一次调解,欢迎致电 (03) 9602 3988 也可以透過電子郵件發送至 chuatan@tpg.com.au。
本文仅为一般性信息,并不构成法律意见。法律会变动,其适用取决于个案事实。采取任何行动前,请就您自身情况取得专业意见。(资讯更新至 2026 年 10 月)
关于祖辈影响、回中国探亲风险等华人家庭特有的调解议题,另请参阅《华人家庭在子女抚养调解中最常遇到的问题》。
版本 1
Almost every parent who wants to apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for orders about their children is told, at some point, that they need “a 60I certificate”. Very few are told what it actually is, who can issue one, or why the process cannot simply be done on the papers.
What a section 60I certificate is
Section 60I of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prevents the Court from hearing an application for a parenting order unless the applicant files a certificate issued by a registered family dispute resolution practitioner (FDRP), or unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.
The certificate is not a judgment. It does not record who was right. It records what happened when the parties were invited to attempt family dispute resolution. It is, in substance, a gatekeeping document: Parliament’s way of requiring separated parents to make a genuine attempt at resolution before the Court’s time is engaged.
Only a practitioner registered on the Commonwealth FDR Register may issue one. A solicitor, a counsellor or a private mediator who is not registered cannot, however experienced they are.
The five kinds of certificate
Section 60I(8) provides for five categories. The practitioner does not choose freely between them; the category follows the facts.
- (a) the person did not attend, but their failure to do so was due to the refusal or failure of the other party to attend;
- (aa) the person did not attend, because the practitioner assessed that it would not be appropriate to conduct the proposed family dispute resolution at all;
- (b) the person attended and all attendees made a genuine effort to resolve the issues;
- (c) the person attended, but one or more parties did not make a genuine effort;
- (d) the person began attending, but the practitioner assessed that it would not be appropriate to continue.
Parents often assume that any certificate is as good as any other. It is not. A certificate under (b) tells the Court something quite different from a certificate under (c), and the Court may take a party’s genuine effort, or the absence of it, into account when considering costs.
When you do not need one at all
Section 60I(9) sets out the exceptions. Broadly, a certificate is not required where the application is for consent orders; where the Court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been child abuse or family violence, or a risk of either; where the matter is urgent; where a party is unable to participate effectively, whether because of incapacity, physical remoteness from dispute resolution services, or for some other reason; and in certain contravention applications made within twelve months of an order.
These exceptions are frequently misread. The family violence exception in particular is not a box to be ticked. The Court must be satisfied on reasonable grounds, and a bare assertion in an affidavit may not be enough.
Five things that are commonly misunderstood
1. The other parent’s refusal does not let you skip the process
This is the most common error we see. A parent whose former partner has flatly refused to mediate assumes they can simply file, explaining the refusal in an affidavit. The Court has taken a different view: where the other party will not participate, the proper course is to obtain a practitioner’s certificate recording that refusal, not to bypass the certificate regime altogether. Refusing to participate and being unable to participate are two different things, and only the second engages the exception.
2. A certificate cannot be issued on the papers
Since 1 April 2025 the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2025 (Cth) have replaced the 2008 regulations. Regulation 24 requires the practitioner to contact a non-attending party on at least two occasions, at least one of those contacts in writing, offering reasonable times for a session and putting that party on notice of the consequences of not attending.
That obligation sits on the practitioner. Months of letters from your solicitor are valuable evidence, and they matter for other purposes, but they do not discharge the practitioner’s duty. The practitioner must run, and record, their own invitation process. Expect that to take several weeks.
3. The certificate has a twelve-month life
A practitioner cannot issue a certificate more than twelve months after the person last attended or attempted to attend family dispute resolution, and the certificate must be filed within twelve months. Obtaining a certificate early and then spending a year attempting negotiation is a common and expensive mistake.
4. Mediation is still worth doing properly
It is tempting to treat family dispute resolution as a hurdle to be cleared on the way to court. In our experience that approach costs more than it saves. Parenting matters that run to final hearing routinely take two years and consume sums that would have funded a decade of school fees. A session conducted in good faith, with a practitioner who understands the family, frequently resolves more than the parties expected.
5. Pressure from outside the room is now expressly relevant
Under the 2025 regulations the practitioner must consider, when assessing whether family dispute resolution is appropriate, whether undue bias or influence from 任何人士, whether or not that person is a party, affects a party’s ability to negotiate freely. For families where grandparents or extended family play a decisive role in decisions about the children, this is a significant provision.
Where the other parent cannot be found
This situation arises more often than people expect, particularly where one parent has returned overseas. It is not hopeless, and it does not automatically fall into an exception. The practitioner will need every last known contact particular for the missing parent and will conduct their own invitation process to each of them; the outcome is usually a certificate under (a), or under (aa) where the practitioner concludes that family dispute resolution cannot appropriately be conducted. A parent in this position will also need to think about service, which is a separate problem with separate solutions.
我們如何幫助您
Justin Chua is a registered family dispute resolution practitioner, nationally accredited mediator and family law arbitrator, and conducts family dispute resolution in English and Mandarin, in person in Melbourne and online across Australia. The firm also acts for parents in parenting proceedings and sits on mediation panels in several jurisdictions.
To discuss whether family dispute resolution is the right step in your matter, or to arrange a session, please call (03) 9602 3988 或電郵 chuatan@tpg.com.au.
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. The law changes and its application depends on the facts of your matter. You should obtain advice about your own circumstances before acting. Current as at October 2026.
另見我們的文章 parenting mediation in Chinese-Australian families, which looks at grandparents, travel to China and the other issues that arise most often.
請諮詢您的律師，就您的情況提供建議。
預約30分鐘的免費諮詢服務，可使用英語、普通話或廣東話進行面談，或透過世界各地的視訊諮詢。如果您繼續委託，諮詢費用將扣除首張帳單。
預約諮詢本文屬於指南： 家庭法 · 查看所有相關指南
简体中文 
English (Australia) 
繁體中文