Farmer & Rogers (No. 2) - [2012] FamCAFC 207

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FARMER & ROGERS (NO. 2)

[2012] FamCAFC 207

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the appellant mother appealed from final parenting orders and subsequent orders providing for a slight variation of the changeover venue – Where the appeal was entirely without merit – No appealable error established.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 22.22

Farmer & Rogers [2009] FamCAFC 117

APPELLANT:

Ms Farmer

RESPONDENT:

Mr Rogers

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Linda Adcock

FIRST APPEAL NUMBER:

NA 101 of 2011

SECOND APPEAL NUMBER:

NA 44 of 2012

FILE NUMBER:

BRC 2790 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED:

7 December 2012

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

May, Ainslie-Wallace & Murphy JJ

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2012

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Magistrates Court

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE IN RELATION TO THE FIRST APPEAL:

29 November 2011

LOWER COURT MNC IN RELATION TO THE FIRST APPEAL:

[2011] FMCAfam 1277

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE IN RELATION TO THE SECOND APPEAL:

17 April 2012

LOWER COURT MNC IN RELATION TO THE SECOND APPEAL:

Not applicable

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Ms Farmer in person

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Rogers in person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr George

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

Appeal NA 101 of 2011 be dismissed.
Appeal NA 44 of 2012 be dismissed.
The application in an appeal filed by the appellant mother on 22 October 2012 be dismissed.
The amended applications filed by the respondent father on 10 October 2012 be dismissed.
The appellant mother pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Farmer & Rogers (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

First Appeal Number: NA 101 of 2011
Second Appeal Number: NA 44 of 2012
File Number: BRC 2790 of 2009

Ms Farmer

Appellant

And

Mr Rogers

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Ms Farmer (“the mother”) brings two appeals from decisions of Jarrett FM.
NA 101 of 2011 (“the first appeal”) concerns the Federal Magistrate’s decision delivered on 29 November 2011 and relates to parenting matters between the mother and Mr Rogers (“the father”) in relation to their child, C (“the child”), who was born in September 2008. The appeal from eight of those orders was first filed on 20 December 2011 and then amended on 2 October 2012.
After the orders of 29 November 2011 were made, the father filed an application to vary the terms of some of the orders made. Further orders were made by the Federal Magistrate on 17 April 2012. By NA 44 of 2012 (“the second appeal”), the mother appeals from most of those orders.
Both appeals were heard together.
On 10 October 2012, the…

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 Farmer & Rogers (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: FARMER & ROGERS (NO. 2) [2012] FamCAFC 207
Case: [2012] FamCAFC 207
Decision Date: 7 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Farmer & Rogers (No. 2), the appeal was brought by the mother against a decision of the Family Court of Australia, which had made orders regarding the custody and care of her two children. The father sought to have the children live with him, and the mother argued against this. The matter reached the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, which was required to determine the appeal and various applications filed by both parties.

The court was tasked with examining whether the primary judge had erred in making certain findings of fact, particularly regarding the welfare and best interests of the children. The mother contested the primary judge’s assessment of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it, arguing that the decision was not in the best interests of the children. The father, on the other hand, sought to uphold the primary judge’s findings, arguing that they were correct and should be maintained.

The Full Court reviewed the evidence and the reasoning of the primary judge, considering the statutory framework and principles governing child custody decisions. The court held that the primary judge had not erred in his findings and that the orders made were in the best interests of the children. The court found that the mother’s appeal and the various applications were without merit. Consequently, the appeals and applications were dismissed, and the mother was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal NA 101 of 2011 be dismissed.

Appeal NA 44 of 2012 be dismissed.

The application in an appeal filed by the appellant mother on 22 October 2012 be dismissed.

The amended applications filed by the respondent father on 10 October 2012 be dismissed.

The appellant mother pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed.

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.