18.43As noted, dispute can arise about how to memorialise a burial or interment site, particularly in situations of relationship breakdown.
18.46However, we approach this suggestion with caution; while cemetery providers will no doubt be sensitive to the different needs of families, it may not be desirable to require or suggest that they take on any formal substantive role in family dispute resolution. In our view, the review of the decision-making framework in chapter 16 provides an opportunity to consider other possibilities.
18.47 The option we raise for consultation is that these disputes could be treated similarly to disputes about the custody of ashes. As we suggest above, disputes about custody could be directed to the Family Court resolution processes. We think that this may also be an appropriate option for the memorialisation disputes that occasionally arise. Like the custody of ashes, the potential for memorialisation disputes to arise in situations of relationship breakdown suggests that Family Court processes could be suited to dealing with the nature of the dispute and the underlying issues.
18.48 It would be necessary to clarify the Family Court’s jurisdiction to handle such disputes. Legislation that clearly sets out the right to apply to the Family Court for specific orders would need to be considered, thereby providing access to the Family Court’s alternative dispute resolution methods. We expect that the Family Court resolution processes would assist in the majority of cases and that not many cases would require a formal order from the court.