BLOOM & CHESTERMAN - [2018] FCCA 680

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLOOM & CHESTERMAN

[2018] FCCA 680

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – dispute as to with whom two children aged 12 and 10 live – where mother not adequately facilitated time with father – where mother derogatory of father – where mother is dispelling her fears about father onto the children – where mother holds unshakeable view that she is right and father is wrong – where dynamics brought about by mother are putting children at risk of emotional harm – where if children remain with mother then relationship with father, stepmother, siblings and stepsiblings will deteriorate and cease – Held in children’s best interests to live with father, for there to be a moratorium where children do not see mother for a school term then alternate weekends, half school holidays and special event time with the mother.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DA, 65DAA, pt.VII

Cases cited:

Johnson & Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Re F Litigants In Person Guidelines [2001] FamCA 348
Hardie & Capris [2010] FamCA 1046
Moose & Moose [2008] FamCAFC 108
Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR
MRR v GR (2010) 263 ALR
Godfrey & Sanders (2007) 208 FLR 287
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
G & C [2006] FamCA 994
R & R : Childrens’ Wishes [2000] FamCA 43
H v W (1995) FLC 92-598
Doyle & Doyle (1992) FLC 92-286

Applicant:

MR BLOOM

Respondent:

MS CHESTERMAN

File Number:

BRC 7796 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge L. Turner

Hearing dates:

15 February 2018 and 16 February 2018

Date of Last Submission:

28 February 2018

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

23 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Bunning

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Pullos Lawyers

The Respondent appeared in person

FINAL PARENTING ORDERS

That all parenting orders and parenting plans made before 15 February 2018 are hereby discharged.
That Order 3 of the final parenting orders made by consent on 15 February 2018 is hereby discharged.
That these orders are to be read in conjunction with the final parenting orders made by consent on 15 February 2018.
That after the delivery of the reasons for judgment, these orders be explained to the children by a family consultant, with the family consultant to be provided with a copy of the reasons.
That it is at the discretion of the family consultant as to whether the children are given the opportunity to say goodbye to the mother.
That forthwith the children [X] born (omitted) 2006 and [Y] born (omitted) 2007 live with the father.
That the father have sole parental responsibility for the children and is to keep the mother informed as to any major long terms decisions made for the children.
That the mother not spend time with or communicate with the children (whether by telephone, text message, email or any other means) until 16 July 2018.
That from the 16 July 2018 the children spend time with the mother as follows:-
(a)That during…

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 BLOOM & CHESTERMAN

Details

AGLC: Bloom and Chesterman [2018] FCCA 680
Case: [2018] FCCA 680
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Bloom & Chesterman*, Justice L. Turner of the Supreme Court of [Jurisdiction] considered a dispute between Bloom and Chesterman concerning [briefly describe the nature of the dispute, e.g., a contractual disagreement, a property boundary issue, a family law matter]. The core of the disagreement revolved around [elaborate slightly on the central point of contention].

The primary legal questions before the Court were [state the key legal issues, e.g., whether a valid contract existed, the interpretation of a specific clause, the application of a particular statute]. Specifically, the Court was required to determine [further refine the legal issues, e.g., the extent of the parties' respective obligations, the appropriate remedy for breach, the legal status of a particular document].

Justice L. Turner's reasoning focused on [explain the court's approach, e.g., an analysis of the relevant contractual provisions, the application of established principles of property law, the interpretation of statutory language]. The Court applied [mention the key legal principles or precedents relied upon, e.g., the parol evidence rule, the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, the principles of statutory interpretation]. The Court concluded that [state the court's finding on the legal issues].

Consequently, the Court ordered that [state the final orders or outcome, e.g., judgment be entered for the plaintiff, the claim be dismissed, specific performance be granted].

Orders