FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Review of a registrar’s decision – Where the child resides with the mother and spends time with the father – Where the father retained the child beyond the agreed period – Changed circumstances – Absence of evidence regarding the extent to which the father suffers with alcohol and substance abuse challenges – Registrar’s orders in the best interests of the child – Application for review dismissed – Father to spend supervised time with the child – Injunction against the father removing the child from his school or his mother’s care – Written submissions as to costs.
Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2A), 61DA, 65DAA, 69ZW
Chisholm, Richard, “Unacceptable Risk – A Comparison of the Family Law and Care Jurisdictions” Children’s Court Conference, Parramatta, 1 September 2010 15
[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 Fleming & Burnett
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Fleming & Burnett [2022] FedCFamC2F 276
Case
[2022] FedCFamC2F 276
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an application for review of orders made by a senior judicial registrar in respect of parenting arrangements for a child, X, born in 2014. The mother had relocated to Adelaide with X from City C, Western Australia, in April 2021. The father had relocated to Adelaide in February 2021. The mother sought that X's time with the father be supervised and that the father be restrained from removing X from her care or from X's school. The father sought a review of the orders made by the senior judicial registrar and that the previous orders be reinstated. The court found that there was an unacceptable risk that the father would again retain X and not return him to the mother. The court made orders for X to spend supervised time with the father and that the father be restrained from removing X from his mother's care or from his school.