Dunn & Dunn (No. 2)

Case [2021] FamCA 425


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dunn & Dunn (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 425

File number(s): ADC 5380 of 2020
Judgment of: BERMAN J
Date of judgment: 23 June 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives with and spends time with – Best interests of child – Interim arrangements – Where the children currently live with the mother and spend time with the father – Where the mother seeks to reduce the time spent with the father – Where the father seeks to increase the time he spends with the children – Where the opinion of the family consultant is that there should not be an increase nor a decrease in the time the children spend with the father – Where the family consultant’s recommendations are consistent with the evidence – Applications dismissed.   
Number of paragraphs: 34
Date of hearing: 18 June 2021
Place: Adelaide
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr McGinn
Solicitor for the Applicant: Clelands Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent: Jordan Fowler Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms Sabou
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Stanley & Co Lawyers

ORDERS

ADC 5380 of 2020
BETWEEN:

MS DUNN

Applicant

AND:

MR DUNN

First Respondent

MR A DUNN

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BERMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 JUNE 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The interim parenting applications of the parties are dismissed.

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

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 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BERMAN J

INTRODUCTION

  1. Ms Dunn, nee … (“the applicant”) and Mr Dunn (“the respondent”) are engaged in ongoing litigation in respect of the future parenting arrangements for X born in 2015 (“X”) and Y born in 2018 (“Y”) (collectively referred to as “the children”) and for settlement of property and spousal maintenance.

  2. On 23 December 2020, parenting orders were made which provided for the following:

    1.        …

    2.        That the children live with the wife.

    3.        That the children spend time with the husband as follows:

    a.Each Wednesday from the conclusion of school (or if no school then 2.00pm) until 6.30pm UPON NOTING that the husband will collect Y from the wife as may be agreed or in default of agreement from the wife immediately prior to the conclusion of school (or if no school then 2.00pm) on Wednesday;

    b.Each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday (or if no school then 2.00pm) to Sunday at 5.00pm, commencing 1 January 2021

    …

  3. The applicant continues to…

Continue reading Dunn & Dunn (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dunn & Dunn (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 425
Case
[2021] FamCA 425
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dunn & Dunn (No. 2)*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting applications brought by Ms Dunn (the applicant) and Mr Dunn (the first respondent). The dispute concerned the living arrangements and time spent between the parties' children and each parent. Ms Dunn sought to reduce the children's time with Mr Dunn, while Mr Dunn sought to increase his time with the children.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine the best interests of the children in relation to interim parenting arrangements, specifically whether to vary the existing schedule of time spent with each parent. The court was required to consider the competing applications and the evidence presented, including the opinion of a family consultant.

Berman J's reasoning was heavily influenced by the family consultant's opinion, which recommended no change to the current arrangements for the children spending time with their father. The court found that the family consultant's recommendations were consistent with the overall evidence before it. Consequently, the court determined that it was not in the children's best interests to alter the existing interim parenting arrangements.

Accordingly, Berman J ordered that the interim parenting applications of both Ms Dunn and Mr Dunn be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

ADC 5380 of 2020

BETWEEN:

MS DUNN

Applicant

AND:

MR DUNN

First Respondent

MR A DUNN

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BERMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 JUNE 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The interim parenting applications of the parties are dismissed.

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

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 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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.