FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660
File number(s): CAC 924 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE W J NEVILLE Date of judgment: 14 June 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – long history of litigation between parties – expert psychologist described the contest between the parties as one of the highest levels of conflict he has seen and, in turn, the flow-on effects for the two children as one of the worst – findings by the Court against the Father of ongoing, relentless coercive and controlling behaviour – clear power imbalance between the parties due to age and current and former workplace positions – clear stalking behaviour by the Father including rummaging through the Mother’s re-cycle bins looking for “evidence” together with threats of more action against her in the future – Mother’s older estranged daughter from an earlier relationship weaponised against the Mother by the Father – police used in a form of harassment of the Mother in doing regular welfare checks one of which resulted in the Mother being charged with assault in relation to one of the children, and incarcerated overnight, yet these charges were later either not pressed or dismissed following findings adverse to the Father – Father made complaints to the Mother’s workplace that resulted in investigations against her but without any adverse findings – Mother and children in need of protection and “safe haven” from the Father’s relentless pursuit of them, including by the very regular filing of Applications in this Court – best interests and protective considerations require the children to live with their Mother who shall have sole parental responsibility and spend no time with the Father. Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.128, 130
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 60CA, 60CC(3)(a) – (m), 65DAA
Cases cited: Australian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Bande & Cade (2011) 45 Fam LR 376
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256
Bielen & Kozma (2022) FLC 94-123; [2022] FedCFamC1A 221
Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2017) 259 CLR 662
Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076
Farrington & Belkis (Recusal Application) (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1343
Carter & Wilson [2023] FedCFamC1A 9
Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Ltd 1919 SC (HL) 35
Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53
Re Edelsten (Bankrupt): Donnelly v Edelsten (1988) 18 FCR 434
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212; (2007) 36 Fam LR 422
Hoult & Hoult (2013) FLC 93-546
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300
Isles v Nelissen (2022) 367 FLR 338; (2022) 65 Fam LR 288
Kovac & Kovac (2024) FLC 94-185; [2024] FedCFamC1A 66
In the Marriage of Kress (1976) 13 ALR 309
Continue reading Farrington & Belkis (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2F 660
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was presented with significant evidence, including expert testimony from a psychologist, which painted a picture of a highly dysfunctional and antagonistic relationship between the parties. The psychologist described the conflict as one of the highest levels he had encountered, with severe repercussions for the children. The court found that Mr Farrington's behaviour towards Ms Belkis was relentless and controlling, creating a power imbalance due to his age and workplace positions. The court also noted instances of stalking and harassment, including the use of police for harassment and attempts to weaponise Ms Belkis's older estranged daughter from a previous relationship. These findings underscored the necessity of protective measures for Ms Belkis and the children.
In light of these findings, the court ordered that Ms Belkis have sole parental responsibility for the children, who were to live with her without any contact from Mr Farrington. The court issued injunctions to prevent Mr Farrington from approaching or contacting the children directly or indirectly, and restrained him from filing further applications in the court without prior leave. The court also imposed a restriction on Ms Belkis from denigrating Mr Farrington in front of the children and required her to ensure the children's engagement with appropriate psychological treatment. Additionally, the court addressed costs associated with a previous contempt application and adjourned property-related applications for further consideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
CAC 924 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR FARRINGTON
Applicant
AND:
MS BELKIS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE W J NEVILLE
DATE OF ORDER:
14 JUNE 2024
ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. All previous Orders in relation to parenting be discharged and dismissed.
2. Excepting any Applications/Response material regarding property matters, all outstanding Applications in relation to parenting matters be dismissed.
3. The Mother have sole parental responsibility for X (born in 2011) and Y (born in 2012) (‘the Children’).
4. The Children shall live with the Mother.
5. The Children shall spend no time with the Father.
6. The Father be restrained by injunction from approaching the Children, directly or indirectly, including at their schools.
7. The Father be restrained by injunction from any contact with the Children, directly or indirectly, including through their older sister, M (born in 2007), or by electronic means or social media.
8. The Mother is restrained from denigrating the father in the presence of the Children.
9. The Mother shall continue to engage with B Organisation, or other appropriate treatment as required.
10. The Mother shall do all things necessary to enrol the Children with, or ensure that the Children continue to engage with, an appropriate psychologist for regular treatment as required to assist the Children in their compliance with these orders.
11. Within 12 months from the date of these Orders, the Father be restrained from filing any further Applications in this Court that replicate any Application made by him or on his behalf over the last 18 months, without prior leave of the Court.
AND THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
12. Within 45 days, being by 29 July 2024, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent of and incidental to the Contempt Application filed on 23rd February 2024 and withdrawn on 24th February 2024, fixed in the sum of $5,500.
13. Within 45 days, being by 29 July 2024, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer of and incidental to the Contempt Application filed on 23rd February 2024 and withdrawn on 24th February 2024, fixed in the sum of $832.48.
14. All extant property applications are adjourned to the Judicial Registrar’s List on 30 JULY 2024 at 10:00AM for First Return, to occur via Microsoft Teams.
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.