Clapton & Sprenger

Case [2007] FamCA 1184


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CLAPTON & SPRENGER [2007] FamCA 1184

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF FEDERAL MAGISTRATE – CHILDREN – RELOCATION – Whether the trial Judge erred in allowing the Mother to relocate to Rockhampton with the child - Best interests of the child – Appeal dismissed – Each party to pay their own costs of the appeal.

Family Law Act 1975

AMS v AIF (1999) FLC 92-852
Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
CDJ & VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
De Winter v De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
In the Marriage of Burke (1992) 112 FLR 250
U & U (2002) 211 CLR 238

APPELLANT: MR CLAPTON
RESPONDENT: MS SPRENGER
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: CARTER NAUGHTON RICE
FILE NUMBER: BRM 1958 of 2003
APPEAL NUMBER: NA 90 of 2006
DATE DELIVERED:

17 September 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: May J
HEARING DATE: 27 April 2007
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 17 October 2006
LOWER COURT MNC: [2006] FMCAfam 472

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Appellant appeared in person
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Laurie
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Simmonds Crowley & Galvin Solicitors

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

COUNSEL:

Mr Linklater-Steel

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

SOLICITOR:

Carter Naughton Rice

Orders

  1. That the appeal against the orders of Federal Magistrate Slack made on 17 October 2006 be dismissed.

  2. That the appellant pay the costs of the respondent and the Independent Children’s Representative for the appearances of 9 March 2007 and 24 April 2007 and the costs of the Independent Children’s Representative of the appeal to be assessed.

  3. That each party pay their own costs of the appeal.

IT IS NOTED THAT IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Full Court delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Clapton and Sprenger.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA 90  of 2006
File Number: BRM 1958  of 2003

MR CLAPTON

Appellant

And

MS SPRENGER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In an amended Notice of Appeal filed on 25 January 2007, Mr Clapton appeals against orders made on 17 October 2006 by Federal Magistrate Slack. In particular he appeals from the orders allowing the mother to continue to reside in Rockhampton, allowing the father time with the child, born … March 2003, on alternate weeks if he lives within 30 kilometres of the mother (Wednesday – Monday), or for one week in the months outside school holidays until November 2007 and then during school term while the father is in Rockhampton. Orders were also made for holidays, the child’s birthday, Fathers Day and telephone contact. The father does not appeal against the order for equal shared parental responsibility.

  2. I mention at this introductory stage that this appeal is to be determined by me as a single Judge of the Family Court pursuant to arrangements made under…

Continue reading Clapton & Sprenger

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Clapton & Sprenger [2007] FamCA 1184
Case
[2007] FamCA 1184
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a decision of Federal Magistrate Slack regarding the relocation of a child. The mother sought to relocate with the child to Rockhampton, a proposal opposed by the father. The appeal was brought by the father against the Federal Magistrate's order allowing the relocation.

The central legal issue before May J was whether the trial judge erred in permitting the mother to relocate with the child to Rockhampton, specifically in light of the paramount consideration of the child's best interests under the *Family Law Act 1975*.

May J dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Federal Magistrate's assessment of the child's best interests. The reasoning applied by the court focused on the established principles for determining relocation disputes, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant factors affecting the child's welfare. The court upheld the original order allowing the relocation.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent and the Independent Children’s Representative for specific appearances, and the costs of the Independent Children’s Representative for the appeal were to be assessed. Otherwise, each party was to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the appeal against the orders of Federal Magistrate Slack made on 17 October 2006 be dismissed.

2.

That the appellant pay the costs of the respondent and the Independent Children’s Representative for the appearances of 9 March 2007 and 24 April 2007 and the costs of the Independent Children’s Representative of the appeal to be assessed.

3.

That each party pay their own costs of the appeal.

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.