Dylan and Bryson - [2018] FamCA 269

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DYLAN & BRYSON

[2018] FamCA 269

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – international relocation ‑ undefended hearing – mother permitted to relocate with child to New Zealand

Family Law Act 1975
APPLICANT:	Mr Dylan

RESPONDENT:

Ms Bryson

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

9845

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

18 April 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Baumann J

HEARING DATE:

18 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by the Applicant

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms R Lyons

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Neumann & Turnour Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr W Ness

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

CNG Law

Orders

That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, B born .. 2012 (“the child”).
That the child live with the mother.
That there be no time or communication between the child and the father.
That the child be permitted to relocate overseas to New Zealand at a time convenient to the mother.
That pursuant to s.68B of the Family Law Act 1975 the father be restrained and an injunction issue restraining the father from:
(a)       harassing, stalking or intimidating the mother;
(b)       contacting the mother and/or child via telephone and/or social media;
(c)       attending upon the child’s school and/or extra-curricular activities; and
(d)       approaching the child directly or indirectly.
That the mother be permitted to obtain a passport for the child and the requirement of the father’s signature on a passport application for the child, pursuant to s.11 of the Passports Act 2005, be dispensed with and an Australian passport issue for the child.
That pursuant to s.65Y(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 this Order operates as authority for the mother to take and/or send the child from the Commonwealth of Australia to places outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
That pursuant to s.11 of the Passports Act 2005 the child be permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia alone for the purpose of a school excursion or extra-curricular activity, or in the company of the mother.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.

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 Dylan & Bryson 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9845 of 2014

Mr Dylan

Applicant

And

Ms Bryson

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Settled from the oral reasons delivered)

Background

Proceedings in relation to B, a little boy born in 2012, and arising from a relationship between the Applicant father, Mr Dylan, who is now approaching his…

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 Dylan and Bryson

Details

AGLC: Dylan and Bryson [2018] FamCA 269
Case: [2018] FamCA 269
Decision Date: 18 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dylan and Bryson, Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the parenting arrangements for a child, B, born in 2012. The proceedings involved the child's mother and father, with the court ultimately making significant orders regarding the child's welfare and the parties' future interactions.

The central legal issues before the court were the determination of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, the nature and extent of any contact between the child and the father, and the child's ability to relocate overseas. Additionally, the court was required to consider whether to grant an injunction to restrain the father's conduct and to make orders concerning the child's passport and international travel.

Baumann J ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the mother. Crucially, the court ordered that there be no time or communication between the child and the father. The mother was permitted to relocate the child overseas to New Zealand, and the father was restrained by injunction from harassing, stalking, or intimidating the mother, contacting either parent via telephone or social media, attending the child's school or activities, or approaching the child directly or indirectly. The court also dispensed with the father's signature for the child's passport application and authorised the mother to take the child overseas, including permitting the child to leave Australia alone for specific purposes. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, B born .. 2012 (“the child”).

That the child live with the mother.

That there be no time or communication between the child and the father.

That the child be permitted to relocate overseas to New Zealand at a time convenient to the mother.

That pursuant to s.68B of the Family Law Act 1975 the father be restrained and an injunction issue restraining the father from:

(a) harassing, stalking or intimidating the mother;

(b) contacting the mother and/or child via telephone and/or social media;

(d) approaching the child directly or indirectly.

That the mother be permitted to obtain a passport for the child and the requirement of the father’s signature on a passport application for the child, pursuant to s.11 of the Passports Act 2005, be dispensed with and an Australian passport issue for the child.

That pursuant to s.65Y(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 this Order operates as authority for the mother to take and/or send the child from the Commonwealth of Australia to places outside the Commonwealth of Australia.

That pursuant to s.11 of the Passports Act 2005 the child be permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia alone for the purpose of a school excursion or extra-curricular activity, or in the company of the mother.

That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.

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.