Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

The Parenting Planner has a section called Beyond the Plan that surfaces strategic AI synthesis on what you’ve drafted. Where the eleven clauses walk the structural drafting and the readiness ribbon flags completeness, the strategic-briefing surface answers a different question: is this plan likely to hold up?

​
What “hold up” means

Three different futures the briefing considers:

Hold up at FDR

A neutral mediator reading the plan finds it well-structured, balanced, and capable of supporting agreement. The other party is more likely to negotiate from it than reject it.

Hold up under solicitor review

A family-law solicitor reading the plan would not flag substantial issues. The plan reads as drafted by someone who knows what they’re doing.

Hold up if filed as Consent Orders

The Federal Circuit and Family Court would be willing to make orders in the terms drafted. Best-interests test (s60CC) is satisfied. No drafting holes that would generate later disputes.

Hold up if varied later

Built-in review windows + clear language on changing circumstances support a future variation without re-litigating the whole plan. References the s65DAAA threshold post-2024.

​
What the briefing analyses

The briefing reads:
  • Your drafted clauses — every clause text, including conditional overlays (family-violence safety, cultural-connection)
  • Your Master Case File — parties, children’s ages, separation date, FV disclosure, ATSI status
  • Evidence Portfolio — what evidence supports the routine you’ve drafted
  • Analogous published case law — cases on similar parenting arrangements with similar children’s ages and circumstances
  • The post-2024 s60CC framework — six general considerations + s60CC(2A) FV mandatory consideration + standalone ATSI consideration
It synthesises across these inputs to produce three outputs.

​
Output 1 — Strengths

The 3–5 things the platform identifies as strongest about your plan. Specific clauses, specific phrasing choices, or specific structural decisions that would read well to a mediator, solicitor, or judge. Example outputs:
  • “Clause 2 (Live with / spend time with) describes the routine in concrete terms — specific days, specific times, specific exchange points. Highly enforceable. Court would adopt with minimal redrafting.”
  • “Clause 12 (family-violence safety overlay) cross-references the FVO precisely + names third-party changeover via [trusted person]. Materially safer than templates that leave changeover unspecified.”
  • “Review windows in clause 11 are anchored to children’s milestones (school start, age 12) + a fixed 24-month checkpoint. Anticipates s65DAAA threshold + reduces future litigation risk.”

​
Output 2 — Risks

The 3–5 things the platform identifies as risks if the plan is left as drafted. Drafting holes, ambiguities, terms that may not survive a contest. Example outputs:
  • “Clause 4 (changeover) doesn’t specify what happens if a parent is more than 30 minutes late. Common source of disputes; consider adding a tolerance + escalation mechanism.”
  • “Clause 3 (communication) caps phone contact at ‘reasonable’ — undefined. A court may decline to adopt this in Consent Orders form because ‘reasonable’ is too imprecise.”
  • “No special-occasions clause. Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, children’s birthdays unaddressed. Often fine in practice; common litigation trigger.”
  • “Routine schedule has term-time arrangement only. School holidays not allocated. Holidays are the most-common dispute area in shared-care matters.”

​
Output 3 — Strategic considerations

Higher-level points about the plan as a whole. Cases the plan resembles (or distinguishes from). Tactical implications. Negotiation positioning. Example outputs:
  • “Plan most resembles arrangements upheld in Goldsmith & Brennan [2017] FamCAFC 35 — primary-care parent with substantial-and-significant time. Likely defensible at hearing.”
  • “You’re proposing a routine that’s currently in operation. Status-quo arrangements carry weight under post-2024 s60CC(2)(c) (developmental needs / stability) but are not determinative.”
  • “The other party may push for equal time. Plan’s case theory is strong on ‘best interests served by primary care + substantial time’ but explicit articulation in any future affidavit would help.”

​
When the briefing is most useful

Before sending plan to other party

Run the briefing first, address the risks, then send. The plan that arrives at the other party’s lawyer should already have the obvious holes closed.

Before solicitor review

Solicitor consultations are expensive. A briefing-cleaned plan means the solicitor’s hour focuses on subtle issues, not basic ones.

Before FDR

A briefing-cleaned plan is the strongest opening position to bring to mediation.

Before filing as Consent Orders

The briefing is the last quality gate. Address everything before swearing the supporting affidavit.

​
Re-running the briefing

The briefing is regenerated automatically when:
  • You materially change a clause (add / remove / substantially edit text)
  • You change the underlying case-file context (FV disclosure, ATSI status, children’s ages)
  • You add evidence to the Portfolio that bears on the plan
You can also click Refresh briefing in the Beyond the Plan section.

​
Reading the briefing well

A discipline:
Read risks before strengths. Strengths are nice; risks are actionable. If you read strengths first, you anchor on positivity. If you read risks first, you act.
Don’t action every risk. Some risks the briefing flags are minor relative to your matter’s specifics. The briefing isn’t your matter’s lawyer — it’s a structured second opinion. Use judgement.
Re-read after material edits. Risks that were live before you addressed them often regenerate as different risks after the edit. The briefing’s job is to keep one step ahead of your draft.

​
What the briefing will not do

  • It will not write the plan for you. Recommendations are recommendations. Drafting is yours.
  • It will not assess your matter’s specifics in human depth. A senior family-law solicitor reading the same plan will catch things the briefing doesn’t (and miss things the briefing catches). Both are useful.
  • It will not predict outcomes. Whether the plan holds up depends on the specific mediator, solicitor, registrar, or judge — not predictable.
  • It will not handle out-of-scope strategic questions. “Should I file at all?” is for Strategic Planning, not this briefing.

​
Where Beyond the Plan connects

  • Plan Readiness ribbon — completeness flags inform the briefing’s risk analysis
  • Master Case File Strategy section — the briefing’s strategic considerations inform the MCF
  • Rice v Asplund readiness — separate but related surface specifically on whether the plan will withstand a future variation challenge — see Rice v Asplund readiness
  • AI assistant — you can ask follow-up questions on any briefing finding

​
What’s next

Rice v Asplund readiness

Specific check on whether the plan anticipates the s65DAAA threshold for future variation.

Plan readiness — three tiers

Completeness scoring and the readiness ribbon.

Section 63C explained

The legal framework the briefing is grounded in.

Drafting your first plan

Step back to drafting if there’s substantial work to do.