Chou and Parsons - [2020] FamCA 70

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHOU & PARSONS

[2020] FamCA 70

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – Where final orders were previously made that children live with mother and spend substantial and significant time the father – Where the father is charged with serious violent sexual offences and cultivating prohibited plant on his premises – Where the mother seeks previous final orders made be discharged and that the children have no contact with the father – Where the father seeks previous final orders made be reinstated – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer proposes that the children spend supervised time with the father – Orders made that the children spend no time with the father.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 65D

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
George & George [2013] FamCAFC 182
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; (2007) 26 Fam LR 422; [2006] FamCA 1346
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405; (2009) 41 Fam LR 483; [2009] FamCAFC 92
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

APPLICANT:

Ms Chou

RESPONDENT:

Mr Parsons

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

JLM Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

4424

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

11 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

4 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Forshaw Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

JLM Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

Pending further order

The children B born … 2012 and C born … 2013 (“the children”) shall live with the mother.
The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children.
The children shall spend no time and have no communication with the father by any means including through a third party.
Orders 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20 and 21 of orders made on 10 February 2017 are discharged.
Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the father, Mr Parsons, shall be and is hereby restrained from contacting the mother Ms Chou or the children by any means whatsoever and shall be further restrained from approaching any residence at which the mother or the children reside from time to time, any place of employment, school, vacation care or similar service provided to the children or being within 100 metres of such premises.

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 Chou & Parsons 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…

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 Chou and Parsons

Details

AGLC: Chou and Parsons [2020] FamCA 70
Case: [2020] FamCA 70
Decision Date: 11 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Chou and Parsons*, heard by Hannam J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children, B and C. The orders made by the court addressed the living arrangements for the children, parental responsibility, and the extent of the father's contact with them.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, specifically whether they should live with the mother and the allocation of parental responsibility. A significant issue was the nature and extent of the father's contact with the children, including whether any contact should be permitted and the scope of any restrictions to be placed on the father.

Hannam J ordered that the children live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility. Crucially, the court ordered that the children spend no time and have no communication with the father by any means, including through a third party. Further, pursuant to section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the father was restrained from contacting the mother or the children by any means, and from approaching any residence of the mother or children, their places of employment, school, or similar services, and from being within 100 metres of such premises. Certain previous orders made on 10 February 2017 were discharged. These orders were made pending further order of the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pending further order

The children B born … 2012 and C born … 2013 (“the children”) shall live with the mother.

The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children.

The children shall spend no time and have no communication with the father by any means including through a third party.

Orders 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20 and 21 of orders made on 10 February 2017 are discharged.

Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the father, Mr Parsons, shall be and is hereby restrained from contacting the mother Ms Chou or the children by any means whatsoever and shall be further restrained from approaching any residence at which the mother or the children reside from time to time, any place of employment, school, vacation care or similar service provided to the children or being within 100 metres of such premises.

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.