Cassidy & Cassidy

[2009] FamCAFC 125

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CASSIDY & CASSIDY [2009] FamCAFC 125

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PARENTING ORDERS – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – Equal shared parental responsibility – Whether Federal Magistrate denied father procedural fairness in making an order for the mother to have sole parental responsibility – Where mother had not sought such an order – Where the Federal Magistrate determined that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted because of family violence and was not in the best interests of the children – Where there was sufficient notice that the Federal Magistrate was considering an order for sole parental responsibility – No denial of procedural fairness – Appealable error not established.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PARENTING ORDERS – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – Whether Federal Magistrate denied father procedural fairness in suspending time father spent with children during mid-term school holidays – Where neither party nor ICL formally sought orders for mid-term school holiday time – Where neither party nor ICL sought suspension of time father spent with children during holidays – Where Federal Magistrate did not raise suspension with either party’s counsel or the ICL – Merit in this ground.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PARENTING ORDERS – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS –Whether the Federal Magistrate denied the father procedural fairness in relation to orders concerning the time the children spent with the father on Wednesday evenings – Where the mother’s proposal changed during the course of the hearing – Where the issue of limited time on Wednesday evenings was raised by the Federal Magistrate with the mother – Where father’s counsel had the opportunity to re-open cross-examination – Where father’s counsel had the opportunity to make submissions – No denial of procedural fairness – Appealable error not established.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PARENTING ORDERS – Whether the Federal Magistrate gave adequate reasons for orders which reduced children’s time with father – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to properly assess the parties’ proposals – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to assess the impact of his orders in reducing the amount of time the children spent with the father – Where the Federal Magistrate did not discuss s 60CC(3)(d) in his reasons – Where a lack of adequate reasons – Appealable error established on this basis.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PARENTING ORDERS – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in weight given to certain evidence – No appealable error established.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PARENTING ORDERS – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in making adverse findings against the father – Where the Federal Magistrate made an incorrect recording as to the source of certain evidence – Where incorrect recording as to source of evidence did not vitiate exercise of discretion.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PROCEDURE – FUTURE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS – Where matter will require rehearing of whole of parenting issues, including equal shared parental responsibility – Where s67ZX(3) applies.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COSTS – Appropriate to grant certificates under Federal…