Dixon & Dixon - [2014] FamCA 686

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIXON & DIXON

[2014] FamCA 686

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting – Magellan identified – What time the child should spend with the father and under what conditions if any – What risk the father and/or his son of a previous relationship poses to the child

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 61DA

Dieter & Dieter [2011] FamCAFC 82
George and George [2013] FamCAFC 182
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286, (2007) 26 Fam LR 422, [2006] FamCA 1346
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

APPLICANT:

Ms Dixon

RESPONDENT:

Mr Dixon

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Bevan

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3611

2013

DATE DELIVERED:	Orders: 30 June 2014
Judgment: 25 August 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

30 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Bainbridge Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Sharon Payne Family Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Sarah Bevan Family Lawyers

Orders

Orders are made in accordance with the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposed minute of order, as follows:
It is ordered, pending further order:
1. That the mother and the father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship, namely B born … 2009 (“the child”).
2. That the child live with the mother.
3. That the child spend time with the father each Wednesday from 9.30 am to 3.00 pm.
4. That the parties forthwith do all things necessary to engage in family therapy with a family therapist nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, including obtaining a mental health care plan for each of the parties if appropriate, from their General Practitioner, and complying with all reasonable requests of the family therapist.
5. Noted that the family therapy is aimed at addressing the relationship between the child and her sibling C, as well as all other relationships in the family sub-system.
6. The father is restrained from allowing the child the child to have any form of contact with C, except during family therapy sessions as recommended by the family therapist.
The child is to otherwise spend time with the father as agreed between the parties.
Reasons for Judgment are to be published on a date to be advised.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3611 of 2013

Ms Dixon

Applicant

And

Mr Dixon

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This matter came before me in a duty list on 30 June 2014 in respect of the interim parenting arrangements for the child, who was about four and a half years old at the time of the hearing.
The parties are in agreement that the child should continue to live with her mother. The issue for determination is what time the child should spend with her father…

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 Dixon & Dixon

Details

AGLC: Dixon & Dixon [2014] FamCA 686
Case: [2014] FamCA 686
Decision Date: 25 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Dixon & Dixon*, heard by Hannam J, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for the child of the relationship, B. The orders made indicate that the mother and father sought to resolve issues relating to B's living arrangements, time spent with each parent, and the nature of their parental responsibility.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate orders for B's upbringing, specifically addressing issues of equal shared parental responsibility, where the child would live, and the extent of time B would spend with each parent. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the need for therapeutic intervention to address family relationships, including the relationship between B and her sibling C, and to make orders regarding contact with C.

Hannam J made orders reflecting a proposed minute from the Independent Children’s Lawyer. These orders established equal shared parental responsibility for B, with B to live with the mother. B was to spend time with the father each Wednesday, and both parents were directed to engage in family therapy. Crucially, the father was restrained from allowing B contact with C, except during family therapy sessions as recommended by the therapist. The parties were also to otherwise agree on B's time with the father.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Orders are made in accordance with the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposed minute of order, as follows:

It is ordered, pending further order:

1. That the mother and the father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship, namely B born … 2009 (“the child”).

2. That the child live with the mother.

3. That the child spend time with the father each Wednesday from 9.30 am to 3.00 pm.

4. That the parties forthwith do all things necessary to engage in family therapy with a family therapist nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, including obtaining a mental health care plan for each of the parties if appropriate, from their General Practitioner, and complying with all reasonable requests of the family therapist.

5. Noted that the family therapy is aimed at addressing the relationship between the child and her sibling C, as well as all other relationships in the family sub-system.

6. The father is restrained from allowing the child the child to have any form of contact with C, except during family therapy sessions as recommended by the family therapist.

2. The child is to otherwise spend time with the father as agreed between the parties.

3. Reasons for Judgment are to be published on a date to be advised.

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.