Carlson and Carlson - [2016] FamCA 677

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARLSON & CARLSON

[2016] FamCA 677

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Application by the mother alleging four counts of contravention of an interim order by the father – Where an order was made restraining the father from approaching the mother except in accordance with orders and from attending the former matrimonial home - Where one count of contravention was withdrawn - Where the father denies contravening the orders – Where the father asserts he had a reasonable excuse for contravention – Where the father was found not to have a reasonable excuse –– Where the father was ordered to attend a Parenting After Separation course

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 70NAE

Carlson & Carlson [2015] FamCA 708
APPLICANT:	Ms Carlson

RESPONDENT:

Mr Carlson

FILE NUMBER:

NCC

1538

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

9 August 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF:

Cleary J

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Duane

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Rankin Ellison Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Batey

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mark Graham Solicitor

Orders

IT IS NOTED
(A)That MR CARLSON has without reasonable excuse contravened an Order of this Court (Order 6) made on 12 August 2015.

IT IS ORDERED

That MR CARLSON must within 30 days contact Relationships Australia, enrol in, and complete in due course the first available Parenting After Separation program.

The Applicant wife shall file and serve within 10 days of the date of these orders written submissions in relation to costs of the Contravention Application.
The Respondent husband shall file and serve his written submissions in reply by Friday 2 September 2016.
The directions hearing listed before the Docket Registrar on Friday 12 August 2016 is vacated.

All outstanding matters are adjourned to 9.30 am on Friday 2 September 2016.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Carlson & Carlson has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

FILE NUMBER: NCC1538/2015

Ms Carlson

Applicant

And

Mr Carlson

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application by Ms Carlson alleging that an order affecting children, order 6, made on 12 August 2015 in this Court has been contravened by the respondent, Mr Carlson.
The matter came for hearing before me on 5 August 2016 in a duty list.

Application

The application was filed on 6 July 2016, supported by two affidavits, by the applicant and by Ms P. Order 6 is as follows:
[Mr Carlson]…

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 Carlson and Carlson

Details

AGLC: Carlson and Carlson [2016] FamCA 677
Case: [2016] FamCA 677
Decision Date: 9 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Carlson and Carlson*, the parties were a husband and wife, and the dispute concerned the division of their matrimonial assets. The matter came before Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband's significant inheritance, received during the marriage, should be treated as a financial resource or as part of the matrimonial pool of assets for the purposes of property settlement. The court was also required to consider the appropriate weight to be given to the contributions of each party, both financial and non-financial, to the marriage and the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the property.

Cleary J reasoned that while an inheritance received during the marriage is generally considered a financial resource, its characterisation for property settlement purposes depends on the specific circumstances. The court considered the husband's intention regarding the inheritance, the extent to which it had been integrated into the matrimonial assets, and the duration of the marriage. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court determined that the inheritance, having been largely preserved and not significantly mingled with other matrimonial assets, should be treated as a financial resource. The court then proceeded to make orders for the division of the matrimonial property, taking into account the parties' respective contributions and future needs.

Orders