FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Undefended hearing – Where the father has behaved inappropriately towards officers of the Court throughout proceedings – Where the father left mid-hearing and elected not to return – Where the hearing proceeded undefended.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests consideration – Determining whether father posed “unacceptable risk” of harm to children due to prolonged drug and alcohol abuse – Whether father has not followed court orders regarding drug and alcohol testing – Order for mother to have sole parental responsibility – Order made for supervised time with father with no progression to unsupervised time.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the mother contends that her contributions were made more arduous due to family violence – Where the father elected to abandon the proceedings mid-hearing and the mother’s evidence regarding contributions was not tested – Adjustments made in favour of the mother.
Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 69ZT, 75(2), 79(2),(4)(a)-(c) and (e), 102NA;
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 15.19
Mr Allen on 6 December 2021 and Mr Howe on 10 December 2021
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Knight Family Lawyers (until 10 December 2021).
Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr O’Grady
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Hosking Lawyers
Counsel for the Independent…
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 Boman & Boman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Boman & Boman [2022] FedCFamC1F 93
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1F 93
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerns parenting and property matters arising from the separation of the parties, Mr Boman and Ms Boman. The husband was represented by counsel at various stages of the proceedings. However, during the course of the trial, he terminated his representation and elected not to participate further in the proceedings. The court exercised its discretion to permit the balance of the trial to proceed undefended by the husband. The court found that the wife should have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the husband’s time with the children should be supervised. The court ordered that the wife should receive the former matrimonial home, subject to the husband’s removal of a caveat, and that she pay the husband $106,000.