BOOTH and PAGE - [2020] FCWA 222

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: BOOTH and PAGE [2020] FCWA 222
CORAM: SUTHERLAND CJ
HEARD: 4 DECEMBER 2020
DELIVERED : 9 DECEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S: PTW 566 of 2013
BETWEEN: MS BOOTH
Applicant
AND
MR PAGE
Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILDREN - Interim - Child suffering from significant and complicated medical issues - Spend time with arrangements following child's discharge from hospital and during the [post-procedure] recovery period - Case turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms Bunney
Respondent	:	Mr Cole
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Ms A

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Cullen Macleod Lawyers
Respondent	:	Moana Chambers- Barristers & Solicitors
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Legal Aid WA

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Jopson & Lilwall (No. 2) [2016] FamCAFC 262

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Booth and Page has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

INTRODUCTION

1[Ms Booth] (“the mother”) and [Mr Page] (“the father”) have been unable to agree a number of interim parenting issues concerning their two children, [Child A] aged 11 and [Child B], who will turn nine in [early] 2021. The proceedings are complicated by the fact that Child B suffers from [Medical Condition A] and [Medical Condition B]. After Child B’s condition significantly deteriorated in mid-2020, he underwent [major surgery] at [Hospital A]. Happily, the procedure went well and Child B is expected to be discharged as an in-patient [soon]. Nevertheless, Child B will remain medically vulnerable for some months to come and could become very unwell again very quickly. Over the next few months, he will be required to attend on his interdisciplinary team at Hospital A on a very regular basis for monitoring and further treatment as required. Child B’s condition must be very carefully managed over the coming months, a process which is made even more difficult by the high levels of conflict that exists between the mother and the father.

THE PARTIES’ PROPOSALS

2For the purposes of this hearing, the ICL sought orders in the terms of an amended Minute filed by her on 3 December 2020. The ICL also relied upon an affidavit affirmed by her on 3 December 2020 and which she undertook at the hearing to file following the hearing, as well as a report provided by the single expert witness, [Dr A], dated 1 December 2020.
3In summary, the ICL sought interim orders to establish a regime for the children’s care upon Child B’s discharge from hospital and over the coming months during his recovery, including:
a) The children continue to live with the mother;
b) Child A continue to spend substantial and significant time with the father, largely in accordance with the…

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 BOOTH and PAGE

Details

AGLC: BOOTH and PAGE [2020] FCWA 222
Case: [2020] FCWA 222
Decision Date: 9 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Booth and Page involved a dispute over the arrangements for a child, referred to as 'K', who had significant and complicated medical issues. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia, with Justice Cronin presiding. The primary focus was on the interim arrangements for the child's spending time, particularly following his discharge from hospital and during the recovery period after a medical procedure. The parents, Booth and Page, had differing views on the best arrangements for the child's welfare.

The legal issues the court had to decide centred around the child's best interests, taking into account his medical needs and the parents' capacity to provide for those needs. The court was required to balance the child's need for stability and care against the parents' respective abilities to meet those needs. The case hinged on the unique facts and circumstances of the child's medical condition and the parents' ability to provide the necessary care and support.

Justice Cronin concluded that the child's best interests would be served by having a period of stability and care with one parent, while the other parent maintained a supportive role. The court found that this arrangement would provide the child with the necessary medical and emotional support during his recovery. The decision was based on detailed evidence of the child's medical condition, the parents' capabilities, and expert opinions on the child's needs. The court's ruling ensured that the child would receive the best possible care during a critical period of his recovery.

Orders