Bant & Clayton

[2015] FamCAFC 222

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANT & CLAYTON [2015] FamCAFC 222

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the trial judge did not err in treating the risk of psychological harm to the child if removed from the mother as a risk of family violence pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 60CC(2)(b) – Where the rejection of the reliability of the father’s evidence was a proper basis for finding that there was an unacceptable risk that if permitted to take the child out of Australia the father would seek to impose the law of his country of origin and that there was an unacceptable risk that the father would remove the child from Australia and retain her in a foreign jurisdiction contrary to the orders of the court – Where the path to the trial judge finding unacceptable risk and that the father would do what the trial judge was concerned about was readily apparent – Where the finding of unacceptable risk was plainly open due to the trial judge’s rejection of the father’s evidence and the finding that the father was an unreliable witness – Where the trial judge’s findings regarding the application of foreign law were limited to considerations regarding the best interests of the child – Where the rejection of the father’s corroborative witness and the acceptance of the evidence of the mother and her witness plainly discredited the evidence of the father – Where there was sufficient evidence for the trial judge to conclude that the father was not a reliable witness on disputed issues of fact – Where the trial judge was entitled to refer to relevant historical facts in the proceedings – Where the trial judge erred in failing to provide adequate reasons as to why the father’s time with the child should be supervised – Where the trial judge erred in failing to provide adequate reasons as to why the father’s time with the child should be restricted – Where there was no basis to conclude apprehended or actual bias by the trial judge – Where the appeal is allowed in part – Where the matter is to be remitted on the issue of time spent between the father and child.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the father sought leave to adduce further evidence – Where the father’s failure to seek to reopen the proceedings prior to the delivery of judgment was fatal to his application – Where the evidence was controversial – Where the evidence did not demonstrate error by the trial judge -  Where the evidence would not have altered the trial judge’s findings – Where the evidence did not go to a crucial issue – Where, due to the result of the appeal, it was unnecessary to receive the evidence – Application dismissed – Where the mother sought leave to adduce further evidence – Where the appeal was allowed in part – Where the evidence did not go to the…