Christensen and Christensen - [2018] FCCA 2390

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHRISTENSEN & CHRISTENSEN

[2018] FCCA 2390

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – older children with firmly expressed view – younger child who has not spent time with the Father for many years – need for gradual re-introduction of time with younger child at contact centre – provision of children’s “views” via short report and by separate memorandum from Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.60CA, 60CC(2A), 60CC(3)(a), 60CC(3)(e), 68LA(3) & (5)

Cases cited:

Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212; (2007) 36 Fam LR 422

R v R (2000) 155 FLR 29; (2000) 25 Fam LR 712

Applicant:

MR CHRISTENSEN

Respondent:

MS CHRISTENSEN

File Number:

CAC 1487 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Neville

Hearing date:

Written Submissions

Date of Last Submission:

19 June 2018

Delivered at:

Canberra

Delivered on:

19 July 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Legalworks

The Respondent:

Self-represented

Solicitors for the Independent Childrens Lawyer:

Tarella Law

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The children [X] (born: 2001), [Y] (born: 2002) and [Z] (born: 2010) live with the Mother.
The children, [X] and [Y], spend time with and communicate with the Father in accordance with their wishes.
The child, [Z], spend time with the Father as facilitated by the Town A Children’s Contact Service.
The parties forthwith do all acts and things and sign all necessary documents to complete the intake process required by the Town A Children’s Contact Service.
Both parties do all necessary acts and sign all necessary documents so as to cause:
(a)a passport to issue for each of the children and to be held by the Mother, and
(b)an updated passport to issue for each of the children at any time that a current passport expires or is due to expire.
Where a party fails or refuses to do so, the requirement for that party’s consent will be dispensed with.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS IN CHAMBERS THAT:

The matter be adjourned for further directions on 20 September 2018 at 2:00pm in CANBERRA.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

(A)The practitioners are granted telephone leave and unless advised no later than three (3) business days prior to the next Court event, Ms Naidoo will be contacted on, Ms Christensen will be contacted on and Ms Hill will be contacted on;
(B)Should a practitioner or party who has been granted telephone leave decide to appear in person, they are to contact Chambers no later than three (3) business days prior to the next Court event advising of their intention to appear in person.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Christensen & Christensen is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 1487 of 2017

MR CHRISTENSEN

Applicant

And

MS CHRISTENSEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter concerns interim parenting Orders in relation to three children - 16 year old [X], 15 year old [Y] and 7 year old…

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 Christensen and Christensen

Details

AGLC: Christensen and Christensen [2018] FCCA 2390
Case: [2018] FCCA 2390
Decision Date: 19 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Christensen and Christensen*, the parties were a husband and wife, and the dispute concerned the division of their matrimonial assets. The matter came before Judge Neville in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate method for valuing and dividing the parties' superannuation interests, which constituted a significant portion of their matrimonial property. The court was required to determine whether to treat the superannuation as a single asset or to consider the various components and potential future benefits.

Judge Neville applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the just and equitable division of matrimonial property. The court considered the contributions of each party to the marriage, both financial and non-financial, as well as their future needs. In relation to the superannuation, the court determined that it should be valued as at the date of the hearing, taking into account the present value of future entitlements. The court also considered the impact of taxation and potential early withdrawal penalties.

The court made orders for the division of the parties' assets, including specific orders relating to the splitting of superannuation interests.

Orders