Farland and Farland

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FARLAND & FARLAND [2010] FamCAFC 25

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – FROM A DECISION OF A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE – PARENTING ORDERS – Appellant challenged the order for equal shared parental responsibility, asserted there were contradictions between reasons and orders, asserted that the Federal Magistrate erred in the orders made as to travel and birthday time and unfairly criticised the mother – The parties sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility – Following the giving of reasons the matter was stood down for the parties to prepare orders reflecting the reasons – No merit in the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed

APPELLANT: Ms FARLAND

RESPONDENT: Mr FARLAND

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7305 of 2008

APPEAL NUMBER: NA 79 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 2 March 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Justice Warnick

HEARING DATE: 19 February 2010

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 8 October 2009

LOWER COURT MNC: [2009] FMCAfam 1215

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hodges

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kerry Barnes Lawyers

Orders

1. That the appeal be dismissed.

2. That the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.

3. That the application in an appeal filed 10 February 2010 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Farland & Farland is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA79/2009
File Number: BRC7305/2008

Ms FARLAND

Appellant

And

Mr FARLAND

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 8 October 2009, Jarrett FM both heard and determined, and gave reasons for that determination, parenting issues between Mr and Ms Farland concerning their child, A, then four and a half years old.

2. As his Honour’s reasons explained, the parents were agreed that they have equal shared parental responsibility and that they share the care of A equally.  What they disagreed about was whether A, who was to begin school in 2010, should spend week about with each parent, as the father proposed, or changeover every three or four days, as the mother proposed. 

3. The learned Federal Magistrate expressed some hesitation about ordering equal shared parental responsibility, though he ultimately so ordered and he resolved issues over the shared care arrangement, by order introducing a week-about scheme, to begin at the start of the school year in 2010, largely preserving the arrangement for shorter periods in the care of each parent up until then.

4. Jarrett FM also resolved an issue about the school that the child attend.

5. In his judgment, after giving his reasons for those conclusions, he said:

   36.In relation to the other issues, there seem to be really no other issues save for perhaps the question of whether interstate travel ought to be included in the orders that the mother seeks about travel arrangements.  I accept the submissions of the father, that there does…