Farnworth & Farnworth - [2024] FedCFamC2F 1094

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Farnworth & Farnworth [2024] FedCFamC2F 1094

File number: DGC 2069 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE

Date of judgment: 26 July 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Application to review decision of Senior Judicial Registrar – application by mother to reopen proceedings – consideration of Rice & Asplund and section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – HELD no significant change of circumstances and not in the best interests of the child to reopen proceedings – application for review dismissed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 65DAAA, 65DAAA(1).

Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) pt 14.3.

Cases cited:
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Whitehill & Talaska [2024] FedCFamC2F 768

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 44

Date of hearing: 25 July 2024

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Potter

Solicitor for the Applicant: Wellington Legal Services Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Skinner

Solicitor for the Respondent: Gale Family Law
ORDERS

DGC 2069 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS FARNWORTH

Applicant

AND:
MR FARNWORTH

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Review filed 10 July 2024 be dismissed.
2.If the Respondent seeks to be heard on the matter of costs, he notify the Chambers of Judge Blake by email on or before 2 August 2024 at 5:00 pm.

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:
3.The Mother and Father each be and are hereby restrained by injunction from making any recording of any telephone communication or audio-visual communication between the child X born in 2010, and the other parent.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.In the event the Respondent wishes to be heard on the matter of costs, the matter will be listed for Mention before Judge Blake.

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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BLAKE
(delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)

This is an application by the mother to review orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar (‘SJR’) of this Court on the 26 June 2024 (‘Review Application’). On that date,…

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 Farnworth & Farnworth

Details

AGLC: Farnworth & Farnworth [2024] FedCFamC2F 1094
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 1094
Decision Date: 26 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Farnworth, the mother, filed an application for review against a decision of the Senior Judicial Registrar in relation to the parenting arrangements for the child X born in 2010. The application sought to reopen proceedings, which had been previously determined. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to decide whether there had been a significant change of circumstances since the last order was made and whether it was in the best interests of the child to reopen the proceedings. The court considered the relevant legal principles under section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the case law of Rice & Asplund. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and assessed the impact of any proposed changes on the child.

The court found that there had not been a significant change of circumstances since the last order, and that reopening the proceedings would not be in the best interests of the child. The court concluded that the application for review should be dismissed, as there was insufficient evidence to warrant a change in the existing parenting arrangements. The court also noted the mutual agreement between the parties to be restrained from recording communications with the child, and this was incorporated into the order.

The court ordered that the application for review be dismissed and that if the father wishes to be heard on the matter of costs, he must notify the court by a specified date. The court also noted that the form of the order was subject to review and amendment if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

DGC 2069 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS FARNWORTH

Applicant

AND:

MR FARNWORTH

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application for Review filed 10 July 2024 be dismissed.

2. If the Respondent seeks to be heard on the matter of costs, he notify the Chambers of Judge Blake by email on or before 2 August 2024 at 5:00 pm.

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

3. The Mother and Father each be and are hereby restrained by injunction from making any recording of any telephone communication or audio-visual communication between the child X born in 2010, and the other parent.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. In the event the Respondent wishes to be heard on the matter of costs, the matter will be listed for Mention before Judge Blake.

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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number:	DGC 2069 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE BLAKE
Date of judgment:	26 July 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Application to review decision of Senior Judicial Registrar – application by mother to reopen proceedings – consideration of Rice & Asplund and section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – HELD no significant change of circumstances and not in the best interests of the child to reopen proceedings – application for review dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 65DAAA, 65DAAA(1). Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) pt 14.3.
Cases cited:	Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 Whitehill & Talaska [2024] FedCFamC2F 768
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	44
Date of hearing:	25 July 2024
Place:	Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Potter
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Wellington Legal Services Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Skinner
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Gale Family Law

DGC 2069 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS FARNWORTH Applicant
AND:	MR FARNWORTH Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:	26 JULY 2024