Albert & Plowman

The appeal arises from a parenting dispute between Albert, the father, and Plowman, the mother, concerning their child. The trial judge issued orders that the child live with the father, spend time with the mother, and be restrained from contact with the mother’s partner’s son, who was alleged to have sexually abused the child. The mother appeals these orders, arguing that the trial judge did not adequately consider expert evidence, misconstrued the child’s allegations, and that the orders were impracticable. The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the mother’s appeal and sought costs.

The court needed to determine whether the trial judge adequately considered the expert evidence, the weight given to the child’s allegations, and the practicability of the orders. The mother contended that the trial judge did not give sufficient weight to the expert’s opinion regarding the risk posed by the partner’s son and that the orders were unworkable because she had since relocated. The court found that the trial judge’s consideration of the expert’s evidence was appropriate and that the orders were practicable given the mother’s initial intention to remain in the area. The injunction against contact with the partner’s son was deemed relevant to the trial judge’s findings about the mother’s protective capacity.

The appeal was dismissed as the trial judge’s reasons were deemed satisfactory and adequate. The mother’s application to adduce further evidence was also dismissed as the proposed evidence would not demonstrate an error by the trial judge. The court found that the principles in CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 supported the dismissal of the application. Given the wholly unsuccessful nature of the appeal, the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer were awarded costs against the appellant, in fixed sums of $17,431 and $12,489 respectively.