Casano and Antipov (No 3)

Case

[2016] FamCA 653

10 August 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Casano and Antipov (No 3) [2016] FamCA 653 [2016] FamCA 653 10 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Casano and Antipov (No 3)*, Hannam J of the Family Court of Australia determined final parenting orders concerning a child, B. The central dispute revolved around the time the father should spend with B, following the father's long-standing allegations of abuse or neglect of B within the mother's household. The court was not satisfied that these allegations were substantiated.

The legal issues before the court included whether the father's allegations of abuse or neglect were proven, the father's parental capacity and attitude to his responsibilities, and the risk of psychological harm to B from spending time with the father, particularly given findings of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, including extensive surveillance. The court also considered an application by the paternal grandmother to intervene during the adjournment of the part-heard final hearing, and an application by the father for the disqualification of the judge based on an apprehension of bias.

Hannam J applied the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child. The court found that the risk of psychological harm to B from being subjected to abuse when spending time with the father and exposed to the father's family violence against the mother was a very significant consideration. The court dismissed the application for disqualification and refused the paternal grandmother's application to intervene.

Consequently, the court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged, with the exception of specific prior orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for B, with B to live with the mother. The father was ordered to spend no time with B and to have no communication with B. The father was also restrained from engaging third parties in surveillance of the mother, Mr F, or B. Injunctions were put in place to prevent the father from removing B from Australia, and the child's name was to be placed on the Family Law Watchlist. The mother was permitted to remove B from Australia and to apply for an Australian travel document for B without the father's consent.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

  • Evidence

Legal Concepts

  • Expert Evidence

  • Injunction

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

9

Statutory Material Cited

0

Casano and Antipov (No 4) [2015] FamCA 1071
CASANO & ANTIPOV [2016] FamCA 548
Casano and Antipov (No 2) [2016] FamCA 549