Bloomberg & Rod

[2010] FamCAFC 112

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLOOMBERG & ROD [2010] FamCAFC 112

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – CHILDREN – EVIDENCE – whether the trial judge erred in relying on a Family Assessment Report – where the father has concerns regarding the evidence of a psychiatrist who had treated the children – whether the trial judge erred in failing to read the transcripts from previous proceedings – no merit in grounds.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – CHILDREN – where the father asserted the trial judge punished the father and had condoned child abuse – whether the trial judge gave insufficient weight to the mother’s negative attitude of the father and the influence she has had over the children and their views – whether the trial judge gave insufficient weight to the financial and child support implications of the orders for the father – whether the trial judge erred in failing to find there was insufficient evidence to justify changing the previous orders – whether the trial judge made orders that were not in the children’s best interests – whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to who was responsible for the repeated litigation – whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the father and children being in a positive and stable relationship – no merit in grounds.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – BIAS – whether comments made by or the behaviour of the trial judge displayed an apprehension of bias or prejudgment – where no application was made by the father seeking the trial judge’s disqualification – whether the father waived his right to object by his failure to seek the trial judge’s disqualification – no reasonable apprehension of bias established.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – where the father was self represented – whether the trial judge failed to afford the father procedural fairness – whether the father was not allowed enough time to present his case – whether the father was not given an opportunity to raise his objections – no merit in any ground of appeal – appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW - CROSS APPEAL – cross appeal by the mother against certain of the trial judge’s orders – mother’s ability to take the children for medical and/or therapeutic treatment – whether the trial judge erred in making an order the effect of which was that the children could not undergo counselling or therapy without the father’s consent – cross appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COSTS – where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – where the father was bona fide in bringing the appeal – where the cross appeal was unsuccessful save for an agreement reached by the parties – no order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC & 69ZX

Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 343
Gronow v Gronow (1979) FLC 90-716
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499