FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Channing & Channing [2024] FedCFamC2F 293
File number(s): PAC 5460 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE OBRADOVIC Date of judgment: 7 March 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Recusal application by respondent father – where matter part-heard – where Court had asked questions of the father during the hearing – crossing the line – entering the fray – where father submits that the Court had prejudged that the father’s position was not in the best interest of the children – whether there is a logical connection between the Court’s questioning of the father and the feared deviation from the course of deciding the case on its merits – whether Court was merely attempting to fact-find
FAMILY LAW – Appointment of single expert – whether appropriate to appoint forensic psychiatrist where clinical psychologist already appointed – complexity of matter – mental health of the mother and the children
Legislation: Family Law Act1975 (Cth) Cases cited: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63
Edinger & Duy [2023] FedCFamC1A 194
Feldman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2020] 103 NSWLR 307
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17
Nuan & Lei [2023] FedCFamC1A 211
Polsen v Harrison [2021] NSWCA 23
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248
Saklani & Valder [2023] FedCFamC1A 163
Vakuata & Kelly [1989] 167 CLR 568
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 97 Date of hearing: 1 March 2024 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Gardiner Solicitor for the Applicant: AJL Legal Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Sultanzada of Hikma Legal Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Dr McConaghy Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW
Table of Corrections 8 March 2024 At [66] the word “despite” is corrected to the word “to”. ORDERS
PAC 5460 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR CHANNING
Applicant
AND: MS CHANNING
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:
7 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Proceeding filed 20 February 2024 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under…
Continue reading Channing & Channing
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Channing & Channing [2024] FedCFamC2F 293
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2F 293
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court addressed the issue of recusal by examining the nature and purpose of its questions. It found that the inquiries were aimed at fact-finding and did not indicate any prejudgment of Mr. Channing's position. The Judge concluded that there was no logical connection between the Court's questions and any alleged prejudgment, and that the concerns raised by Mr. Channing were unfounded. Additionally, the Court considered the appropriateness of appointing a forensic psychiatrist alongside the existing clinical psychologist, given the complexity of the case, particularly concerning the mental health of both the mother and the children. The Court found that a single expert was sufficient to cover all necessary aspects of the case.
Following its reasoning, the Court dismissed the application for recusal. The Court was satisfied that its questions were appropriate and did not prejudge the case, and it saw no merit in appointing an additional expert given the expertise already present in the proceedings. The Court's decision was recorded in its order, dismissing the application filed by Mr. Channing on 20 February 2024.
Orders
Orders of the court
PAC 5460 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR CHANNING
Applicant
AND:
MS CHANNING
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:
7 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Application in a Proceeding filed 20 February 2024 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.