Legal Research
Cases
Chadwick & Chadwick

Chadwick & Chadwick

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 312 4 April 2023

Parental Responsibility

Best Interests of the Child

Risk of Harm

Contact and Communication Arrangements

Supervised Contact

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Chadwick & Chadwick [2023] FedCFamC2F 312

File number(s): CAC 2063 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE W J NEVILLE

Date of judgment: 4 April 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – residence – both parties sought the residence of two female children – Mother made allegations the Father had sexually abused the younger child and groomed the older child – repeated interviews with police and care and protection where authorities consistently found no substantiation of the allegations of sexual abuse – where child protection found a risk of psychological abuse in the Mother’s care – where the Mother asked the child leading questions - Mother amended position at the commencement of the trial for the children to begin to commence supervised time with the Father building up – Father proposed the children live with him and spend a moratorium of 6 months without spending time with the Mother, building up to supervised then non-supervised time – where the evidence does not support the Mother’s allegations of the risk of the children in the Father’s care – where the Mother raises a psychological risk of systems abuse to the children – the children’s best interests require them initially not to spend any face-to-face-time with the Mother for a short period, and to live primarily with their Father and spend somewhat limited but regular time with the Mother.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC

Cases cited:
AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160

B & B [2006] FamCA 1207

Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Franklyn & Franklyn (2021) FLC 94-031

Isles & Nelissen (2022) 65 Fam LR 288

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69

Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

McCall v Clark (2009) 41 Fam LR 483

Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375

Pilot & Silver (No.2) [2022] FedCfamC1F 538

Sigley v Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439

U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238

Vontek v Vontek [2017] FamCAFC 28

C.W. Goff, K.R. Burke, C. Rickenback, D.P. Buebendorf, “Vaginal opening measurement in prepubertal girls,” American Journal of Diseases of Children (1989) November 143(11) 1366-8

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 201

Date of last submissions: 20 January 2023

Date of hearing: 31 August 2022 – 2 September 2022; 25 October 2022

Place: Canberra

Counsel for the Applicant Mr J Haddock

Solicitor for the Applicant Parker Coles Curtis

Counsel for the Respondent Dr J Behrens

Solicitor for the Respondent Neilan Stramandinoli Family Law

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Ms J Treherne

Independent Children’s Lawyer Jeanine Lloyd & Associates

ORDERS

CAC 2063 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR CHADWICK
Applicant

AND:
MS CHADWICK
Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE W J NEVILLE

DATE OF ORDER:

4 April 2023

ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Father have sole parental responsibility for the children X, born

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 Chadwick & Chadwick

Details

AGLC: Chadwick & Chadwick [2023] FedCFamC2F 312
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 312
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- Parties: The case involves Mr Chadwick and Ms Chadwick, who are the parents of two female children.

- Nature of the dispute: The dispute centers around the allegations of sexual abuse made by one of the daughters against her father, as well as allegations of grooming made by the other daughter. The mother has made allegations of sexual abuse and grooming, but multiple investigations by authorities have found no substantiation of these allegations.

- Court: The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

- Legal issues: The court was required to decide on the legal issues related to the allegations of sexual abuse and grooming, the best interests of the children, and the appropriate parenting orders to be made.

- Court's reasoning and outcome: The court found no relevant unacceptable risk in the children spending time with their father. It also found that the allegations made by the youngest daughter were not credible and that there was no evidence to support the allegations of sexual abuse and grooming. The court made orders that the children should live primarily with their father and spend a limited but regular time with their mother. The court also ordered that the mother participate in psychological counseling and that the father facilitate therapeutic counseling for himself and the children. The court emphasized the importance of the children's best interests and the need for support and healing for all parties involved.

- Final orders: The court made orders for the children to live primarily with their father and spend a limited but regular time with their mother. The court also ordered that the mother participate in psychological counseling and that the father facilitate therapeutic counseling for himself and the children. The court requested that the Independent Children's Lawyer remain in the matter for the next 12 months and provide notes to the Court every 3 months as to how matters are progressing with the children on all relevant fronts.

Orders