Anstey & Leeds - [2021] FCCA 1826

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Anstey & Leeds [2021] FCCA 1826

File number(s): PAC 6038 of 2018

Judgment of: JUDGE OBRADOVIC

Date of judgment: 11 August 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – undefended as against the father – young child – best interest of child – serious allegations of family violence – assessment of risk – mother to have sole parental responsibility for the child – child to spend no time with the father – mother to engage with treating general practitioner and B Family Centre.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 65DAA, 68B.
Federal Circuit Court Rules 1999 (Cth) rr 13.03A, 13.03B.

Cases cited:
Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100
Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Number of paragraphs: 27

Date of hearing: 22 July 2021

Place: Parramatta

Appearing for the Applicant: In person

Appearing for the Respondent: Ms MacDonald

Solicitor for the Respondent: Women’s Legal Services NSW

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Fermanis

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: JLM Family Lawyers
ORDERS

PAC 6038 of 2018

BETWEEN:
MR ANSTEY

Applicant

AND:
MS LEEDS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE OBRADOVIC

DATE OF ORDER:

11 AUGUST 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent mother, Ms Leeds, shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2015.
2.The child shall live with the mother.
3.The child shall spend no time with the applicant father, Mr Anstey.
4.The respondent mother continue to attend upon her treating General Practitioner at no less than three month intervals for the purpose of a mental health check-up and to ensure compliance with her medication.
5.Within 7 days of these Orders, the respondent mother engage with B Family Centre and request assessment and intake, and thereafter continue to engage as determined by B Family Centre.
6.Within 7 days, the Independent Children’s Lawyer provide a copy of these Orders to the respondent mother’s current General Practitioner at C Medical Clinic and to B Family Centre.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Anstey & Leeds is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE OBRADOVIC:

X, who was born in 2015, is the only child of the applicant father and the respondent mother. X has been living with her mother and she has not spent any time with her father since July 2018.
On 21 April 2021, the Court set the parenting proceedings down for an undefended final hearing as against the father, who had failed to comply with the Court’s trial directions. The matter was listed for final hearing on 10 May 2021.
On 10 May 2021, the father attended Court and made…

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 Anstey & Leeds

Details

AGLC: Anstey & Leeds [2021] FCCA 1826
Case: [2021] FCCA 1826
Decision Date: 11 AUGUST 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Anstey & Leeds*, heard before Judge Obradovic, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for a young child. The proceedings were undefended as against the father, Mr Anstey. The core of the dispute involved serious allegations of family violence and the assessment of risk to the child.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether the mother, Ms Leeds, should have sole parental responsibility, whether the child should live with the mother, and crucially, whether the child should spend any time with the father. Additionally, the court needed to consider appropriate orders for the mother's ongoing engagement with health professionals and support services.

Judge Obradovic ordered that the respondent mother, Ms Leeds, have sole parental responsibility for the child, who was born in 2015. The child was ordered to live with the mother and to spend no time with the applicant father, Mr Anstey. The court further ordered that the mother continue to attend her treating General Practitioner at intervals of no less than three months for mental health check-ups and medication compliance. Within seven days of the orders, the mother was also required to engage with B Family Centre for assessment and intake, and to continue engagement as determined by the centre. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was directed to provide a copy of these orders to the mother's General Practitioner and B Family Centre within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent mother, Ms Leeds, shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2015.

2. The child shall live with the mother.

3. The child shall spend no time with the applicant father, Mr Anstey.

4. The respondent mother continue to attend upon her treating General Practitioner at no less than three month intervals for the purpose of a mental health check-up and to ensure compliance with her medication.

5. Within 7 days of these Orders, the respondent mother engage with B Family Centre and request assessment and intake, and thereafter continue to engage as determined by B Family Centre.

6. Within 7 days, the Independent Children’s Lawyer provide a copy of these Orders to the respondent mother’s current General Practitioner at C Medical Clinic and to B Family Centre.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	PAC 6038 of 2018
Judgment of:	JUDGE OBRADOVIC
Date of judgment:	11 August 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting – undefended as against the father – young child – best interest of child – serious allegations of family violence – assessment of risk – mother to have sole parental responsibility for the child – child to spend no time with the father – mother to engage with treating general practitioner and B Family Centre.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 65DAA, 68B. Federal Circuit Court Rules 1999 (Cth) rr 13.03A, 13.03B.
Cases cited:	Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100 Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1 Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520 McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4
Number of paragraphs:	27
Date of hearing:	22 July 2021
Place:	Parramatta
Appearing for the Applicant:	In person
Appearing for the Respondent:	Ms MacDonald
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Women’s Legal Services NSW
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Mr Fermanis
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	JLM Family Lawyers

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:	11 AUGUST 2021