Aldrich and Bingley - [2014] FamCA 516

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ALDRICH & BINGLEY

[2014] FamCA 516

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Final Orders – provision of information – where mother opposed the father being made aware of the location of the children’s school – where father sought to be involved in children’s education – previous allegations of violence – orders made for the father to be permitted to obtain school reports and attend interviews by telephone – injunction granted restraining father from attending the school.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

APPLICANT:

Mr Aldrich

RESPONDENT:

Ms Bingley

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Terry Stephen

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

3119

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

16 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Dansie

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Duncan Basheer Hannon

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Aylward

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Catherine Hicks & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Stephen

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Services Commission of SA

NOTING the orders made on 14 July 2014

Orders

That the father is restrained and an injunction is granted restraining him from approaching the mother and the children at their home, their place of education or child care, any place of employment or any place that they may frequent PROVIDED that nothing shall preclude the father from communicating with the children’s school by telephone or email with a view to:-
(a)Obtaining school reports and any other material which would normally be provided to a parent (at his cost); and
(b)Taking part in any parent-teacher interviews providing same shall occur by telephone.
That the parties are restrained and an injunction is granted restraining each of them from denigrating the other or being derogatory about the other in the presence of the children or to any teachers, staff or the general school community (other students and their parents or guardians) in respect of any school at which the children may attend from time to time.
That the order for the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.
That all matters be removed from the Active Pending List of Cases.
Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Aldrich & Bingley has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3119 of 2010

Mr Aldrich

Applicant

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aldrich and Bingley

Details

AGLC: Aldrich and Bingley [2014] FamCA 516
Case: [2014] FamCA 516
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr. Aldrich (the applicant father) and Ms. Bingley (the respondent mother) concerning final parenting orders for their three children. The primary disagreement centred on the extent of the father's involvement in the children's education, specifically whether he should be informed of their school's location and be permitted to attend school-related events. The mother sought to prevent the father from attending the children's school, while the father wished to receive school reports and participate in parent-teacher interviews.

The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the father's right to information and involvement in his children's education, balanced against the mother's concerns about the children's safety and the potential for the father to learn their whereabouts. This involved considering previous allegations of violence and controlling behaviour by the father, as well as the children's best interests in maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents, as mandated by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court also had to assess the risk of the father absconding with the children or unduly influencing them, as raised by the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer.

The court's reasoning acknowledged the history of conflict between the parties, including allegations of family violence and deportation from Saudi Arabia. Despite these serious allegations, the court noted that the father had complied with previous court orders and had spent unsupervised time with the children without incident since October 2013. The court found it artificial to allow unsupervised time with the children while preventing the father from understanding their educational development. Applying principles of the Family Law Act, the court sought to facilitate the father's involvement in the children's education while mitigating risks.

Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the father from approaching the mother and children at their home, school, or other frequented places. However, it permitted the father to communicate with the children's school by telephone or email to obtain school reports and participate in parent-teacher interviews conducted by telephone. The court also made orders restraining both parties from denigrating each other in the presence of the children or at the school. The order for the appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all matters were removed from the Active Pending List.

Orders