CAMPBELL and HALL - [2019] FCWA 31

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: CAMPBELL and HALL [2019] FCWA 31
CORAM: DUNCANSON J
HEARD: 10 JANUARY 2019
DELIVERED : 19 FEBRUARY 2019
FILE NO/S: PTW 6575 of 2017
BETWEEN: MR CAMPBELL
Applicant
AND
MS HALL
Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILDREN - Where the mother relocated the child from [Suburb B] to
[Suburb A] - Where the father seeks the child's return and a week about living arrangement - Where it is in the best interests of the child to remain living with the mother in [Suburb A] and for her parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for her - Where it is not in the child's best interests that her name be changed

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA) s 66, s 66C, s 70A, s 89AA

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant

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

Reynolds and Sherman [2015] FamCAFC 128

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

1These proceedings concern [P] who is four years of age. P lives with the mother, [Ms Hall] in [Suburb A]. She spends time with the father, [Mr Campbell] who lives in [Suburb B].
2
After the parties separated the mother lived with P in Suburb B. In September 2017 the mother moved with P to

Suburb A where she wishes to remain. The father wants P to be returned to the Suburb B area.

THE ORDERS SOUGHT

3The father wants the mother to return with P to an area bordered by Suburb B in the North and [Suburb C] in the South ("the Suburb B area") by the commencement of the 2019 school year and to be restrained from relocating P from that area. In the event P returns to the Suburb B area the father proposes that she live with her parents on a week about basis.
4In the event that the mother remains living out of the Suburb B area, the father seeks an order that P live with him and spend time with the mother each alternate weekend.
5The mother proposes that P continue living with her in Suburb A and spend time with the father each alternate weekend. It was the mother's position that if the Court ordered that P should be returned to the Suburb B area, the mother would return there but with considerable difficulty.
6The parties agree they will have equal shared parental responsibility for P. There are however other significant issues to be determined including the school to be attended by P. Currently she attends [School A] near Suburb A and the mother seeks to continue her education there. The father is opposed to that and wants P to attend a non-religious school.
7The mother seeks a change to P’s surname from Campbell to Campbell-Hall. The father opposes the change of name.
8The…

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 CAMPBELL and HALL

Details

AGLC: CAMPBELL and HALL [2019] FCWA 31
Case: [2019] FCWA 31
Decision Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are the mother and father of a child, with the father seeking the return of the child from Suburb B to Suburb A, along with a change in the living arrangement and parental responsibility. The court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the child to remain with the mother in Suburb A, whether the parents should share equal parental responsibility, and whether it was appropriate to change the child's name.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centred around the best interests of the child, the appropriateness of the mother's relocation, and the sharing of parental responsibility. The father argued that the child should return to Suburb A and that his parents should have equal shared parental responsibility. Additionally, the father sought to change the child's name. The mother, on the other hand, argued that the child should remain with her in Suburb A, and that it was not in the child's best interests to change her name.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that it was in the best interests of the child to remain with the mother in Suburb A. The court recognised the mother's role in the child's life and the stability provided by her current environment. The court also determined that equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate, given the father's involvement and the child's need for both parents. However, the court held that changing the child's name was not in her best interests, as it would potentially cause confusion and distress. The court considered the child's wishes and the potential impact of the name change on her identity.

The court ordered that the child remain with the mother in Suburb A, with equal shared parental responsibility for both parents. The court also refused the father's application to change the child's name.

Orders