Florence & Stanbury - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1755

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Florence & Stanbury [2022] FedCFamC2F 1755

File number(s): NCC 258 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE CARTY

Date of judgment: 16 December 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Allocation of parental responsibility – whether equal time with each parent will promote best interests of children – considerations relevant to court making order for equal shared care-live with arrangements - spend time with arrangements – children’s schooling- application for passport and international travel

Legislation:
Australian Passport Act 2005 s 11

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 79,144

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65D, 65DAA, 65DAC, 68B, 69ZT, 69ZX, Division 12A, Part VII

Cases cited:
Eden & Eden-Proust [2011] FamCAFC 138

McGregor & McGregor [2012] FamCAFC 69

Palange & Kalhoun [2022] FedCFamC2F 149

Re G: Children’s Schooling [2000] FamCA 462; (2000) 26 Fam LR 143; FLC 93-025

Re Child’s Passport Application [2008] FMCAfam 1031

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 216

Date of last submission/s: 5 August 2022

Date of hearing: 4 and 5 August 2022

Place: Newcastle

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Bithrey

Solicitor for the Applicant: Merridy Elphick Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Longworth

Solicitor for the Respondent: Everingham Solomons Solicitors

Table of Corrections

20 December 2022 The title of the judgment has been corrected from “Stanbury” to “Stanbury”.

In the order the name of the respondent has been corrected from “ Stanbury ” to “Stanbury”.

In paragraph 1 one reference to “ Stanbury” has been corrected to show “Stanbury”.

Page 23 title of evidence “Ms J” has been corrected to show “Ms J”.

In paragraph 98 one reference to “ Stanbury” has been corrected to show “Stanbury”.

In paragraph 99 two referenced to “ Stanbury” have been corrected to show “Stanbury”.

In paragraph 100 one reference to “ Stanbury” has been corrected to show “Stanbury”.
ORDERS

NCC 258 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR FLORENCE

Applicant

AND:
MS STANBURY

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE CARTY

DATE OF ORDER:

16 December 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The children X (“X”) born in 2013, Y (“Y”) born in 2015 and Z (“Z”) born in 2017 (collectively “the children”) live with the mother.
2.The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, save and except in relation to the major long term decisions about which school each child will attend.
3.The mother have sole parental responsibility for the major long term decisions about which school each child will attend.
4.With the exception of the major long term decisions about which school each child will attend, the parents will consult with each other about major long term issues as follows:
4.1They will inform the other parent about the decision to be made;
4.2They will consult with each other on terms upon which they agree; and
4.3They will make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

5.Whenever a major long term decision about which school each child…

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 Florence & Stanbury

Details

AGLC: Florence & Stanbury [2022] FedCFamC2F 1755
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1755
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Florence & Stanbury, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining various parenting arrangements for the three children of the parties. The central issues involved the allocation of parental responsibility, the children's schooling, and whether to compel the parents to obtain passports for international travel. The court found that while both parents have the capacity to meet the children's day-to-day needs, the father's inability to prioritise the children's emotional needs and his lack of respect for the mother raised concerns. The mother, on the other hand, demonstrated a more proactive, respectful, and child-focused approach, which was deemed more suitable for making major long-term decisions about the children's education and health. The court ruled that the mother should have sole responsibility for major long-term decisions about the children's education, while both parents would share responsibility for all other major long-term decisions. The children were ordered to live with the mother but would spend substantial and significant time with the father. The court also decided against making orders for international travel and vaccination against COVID-19, leaving these decisions to the parents.

Orders