EAGLE & SCARLETT - [2020] FamCAFC 68

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EAGLE & SCARLETT

[2020] FamCAFC 68

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of transcript – Where the father seeks an order that the court provide the transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge – Consideration of the factors in Sampson & Hartnett (Provision of Transcript) (2013) FLC 93-542 – Application allowed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Forbes & Bream [2008] FamCAFC 189

Sampson & Hartnett(Provision of Transcript) (2013) FLC 93-542; [2010] FamCAFC 220

APPELLANT:

Mr Eagle

RESPONDENT:

Ms Scarlett

THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S
LAWYER

JLM Family Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

2781

2016

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2020

DATE DELIVERED:

1 April 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace J

HEARING DATE:

24 March 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

13 December 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FCCA 3584

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Reid Legal Pty Ltd

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

JLM Family Lawyers

Orders

The Family Court of Australia pay for and provide to the parties a copy of the transcript of the evidence of each of the parties and the Family Consultant.

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 Eagle & Scarlett 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).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EAA 6 of 2020
File Number: PAC 2781 of 2016

Mr Eagle

Appellant

and

Ms Scarlett

Respondent

and

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Eagle (“the father”) appeals final parenting orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 13 December 2019. Her Honour ordered that Ms Scarlett (“the mother”) have sole parental responsibility for the parties’ child X (“the child”) who was born in 2015; that the child live with her and that the child spend no time with the father.
By an Application in an Appeal filed on 18 March 2020 the father seeks an order that the court pay for and provide the transcript of the final hearing heard before the primary judge for the hearing dates 27, 28, 29 May and 17 June 2019.
The father says that he is a pensioner and contends that he cannot afford the cost associated with the provision of the transcript.
The father represents himself and has prepared the grounds of appeal. In short, he contends that the primary judge mistook the facts and…

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 EAGLE & SCARLETT

Details

AGLC: EAGLE & SCARLETT [2020] FamCAFC 68
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 68
Decision Date: 1 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of EAGLE & SCARLETT involved a dispute between the parents over the care and custody of their child. The parents were unable to agree on the future care arrangements for their child, leading to this legal action. The matter was heard by a Family Court judge who was tasked with determining the best interests of the child in light of the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the respective parenting capabilities of the parents, the evaluation of the child’s needs and preferences, and the impact of any potential changes in the child’s living arrangements. The court had to consider various factors, such as the emotional and physical well-being of the child, the ability of each parent to provide a stable and loving environment, and the child's own views and wishes, if appropriate.

The court carefully examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, along with the Family Consultant’s report. The judge found that one parent was more capable of meeting the child’s needs in terms of emotional support and stability. Consequently, the court decided that it was in the child’s best interest to be primarily in the care of that parent, with specific visitation arrangements for the other parent. The court also made an order for the Family Court to provide a transcript of the evidence to the parties.

The final orders included the provision of a transcript of the evidence and a detailed arrangement for the child's care and visitation rights, aimed at ensuring the child's welfare and stability.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Family Court of Australia pay for and provide to the parties a copy of the transcript of the evidence of each of the parties and the Family Consultant.

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.