Champness & Hanson

In the matter of Champness & Hanson, the father appealed the decision of the Family Court of Australia, which had allowed the mother to relocate to Ireland with their children. The father argued that the trial Judge had erred in making certain orders, including those regarding supervised contact, the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, and the interpretation of family violence findings. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues that the Court of Appeal needed to decide were whether the trial Judge had erred in making orders for indefinite supervised contact and whether a review mechanism should have been incorporated to potentially remove the supervision requirement in the future. Additionally, the Court examined whether the primary considerations in section 60CC(2) of the Family Law Act had priority over the additional considerations in section 60CC(3). The Court also reviewed whether the trial Judge had assumed the role of an advocate and whether the findings of family violence justified the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility not applying.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge had not erred in making the orders for indefinite supervised contact and that a review mechanism was not necessary. The father could demonstrate changed circumstances to meet the Rice v Asplund test. The Court held that the primary considerations in section 60CC(2) did not necessarily have priority over the additional considerations in section 60CC(3). Furthermore, the Court found that the trial Judge had not misled counsel or assumed the role of an advocate, and that the findings of family violence justified the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility not applying.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal against the orders made by the Honourable Justice Burr on 30 June 2008. No orders were made as to costs.