Chifley and Rollins - [2017] FamCA 1088

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHIFLEY & ROLLINS

[2017] FamCA 1088

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTING – where consent orders tendered have little curial effect – where history of past orders gives no comfort that these proposals will be any different – where it is found these proposals do not satisfy a best interests’ test.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Bondelmonte v Bondemonte (2017) FLC 93-763
Harris v Caladine (1991) FLC 92-217
Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469
U and U (2002) FLC 93-112
VR v RR [2002] FamCA 320; (2002) FLC 93-099

APPLICANT:

Ms Chifley

RESPONDENT:

Mr Rollins

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

4744

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

15 December 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

7 December 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Heggie

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Toner & May Legal Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Robertson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Cinque Oakley Senior

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Jenkinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Sofra Solicitors

Orders

Upon the court refusing to make orders in terms of the parties’ consensual arrangements, orders were made concluding the proceedings with the parties executing a parenting plan

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Chifley & Rollins has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4744 of 2014

Ms Chifley

Applicant

And

Mr Rollins

Respondent

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

7 December 2017 was to have been the first day of the final hearing of a number of days concerning a parenting dispute between Mr Rollins (“the father”) and Ms Chifley (“the mother”). Each was represented by counsel as was the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
To the parties’ credit, the issues were said to be resolved and, supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the parties signed a minute of what orders they wanted.
Having read the minute, I indicated I was not prepared to “rubber stamp” the proposed orders but if they were seriously intending their agreement to finalise the dispute for the future benefit of their three children, I would encourage them to consider a parenting plan. I likened that concept to a contract between the parents under which each would fulfil what they saw as an obligation which was beneficial to their children and, should a breach of that agreement arise, they could issue a specific application for parenting orders.
The parties faced the prospect that I would dismiss their respective applications,…

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 Chifley and Rollins

Details

AGLC: Chifley and Rollins [2017] FamCA 1088
Case: [2017] FamCA 1088
Decision Date: 15 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Chifley and Rollins*, the parties brought their dispute before Cronin J. The nature of the dispute concerned parenting arrangements, and the parties had reached a consensual agreement regarding these arrangements.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to make orders in accordance with the parties' proposed consensual arrangements. This required the court to consider the appropriateness of the agreed parenting plan in light of its statutory obligations and the best interests of the child.

Cronin J ultimately refused to make orders in the terms proposed by the parties. While the specific reasons for this refusal are not detailed in the provided text, the court's decision indicates a determination that the consensual arrangements did not meet the necessary legal threshold for judicial endorsement. Following this refusal, the court made orders concluding the proceedings, with the parties subsequently executing a parenting plan.

Orders

Orders of the court

Upon the court refusing to make orders in terms of the parties’ consensual arrangements, orders were made concluding the proceedings with the parties executing a parenting plan

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.