Carpenter & Carpenter

In the matter of Carpenter & Carpenter, the appellant, the mother, appealed against the findings and orders made by the trial judge in family law proceedings concerning their children. The mother contended that the trial judge erred in not finding an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the children from the father, in not taking statements by the child indicating sexual impropriety by the father literally, in finding that the mother had coached or influenced the children, and in the weight given to the expert evidence. Additionally, the mother argued that the trial judge erred in not excluding the evidence of the expert witnesses as they were not "specialised in child sexual abuse" and alleged that the trial judge may have altered or amended the transcription of the proceedings and/or the audio recordings. The father, the respondent, argued that the trial judge's findings were correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Full Court examined the mother's submissions and found that there was no demonstrated error by the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge had correctly identified the issue as whether there was an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse occurring in relation to the proposed orders, not whether sexual abuse had in fact occurred. The court held that the evidence of the children themselves, and not the father, grounded the trial judge's findings, and that the trial judge had applied the Briginshaw standard to the evidence of the father in relation to the question of whether the mother had coached or influenced the children. The court also found that there was no evidence to substantiate the mother's allegation that the trial judge may have altered or amended the transcription of the proceedings and/or the audio recordings. The appeal was dismissed.

The Full Court dismissed the mother's application to adduce further evidence, save for evidence that was admitted by consent. The court made an order for costs in favour of the father, as the appeal was wholly unsuccessful. The court also ordered indemnity costs in relation to the ground of appeal alleging an alteration or amendment to the audio recording and/or the transcript, as this ground contained unsubstantiated allegations against a judicial officer or an officer of the Court.

In conclusion, the Full Court found no error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the mother's appeal. The court ordered the mother to pay the costs of the appeal to the father, with indemnity costs for one ground of appeal, and dismissed the mother's application to adduce further evidence, save for evidence that was admitted by consent.