Galardi & Renosa - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1108

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Galardi & Renosa [2022] FedCFamC2F 1108

File number(s): PAC 1998 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment: 22 August 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting - final parenting hearing -competing parenting proposals - best interests of children -final parenting Orders made

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA(3), 65D

Cases cited:
Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93–407

Gorman & Huffman [2016] FamCAFC 174

Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93–375

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90–725

Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 336

Date of last submission/s: 13 June 2022

Date of hearing: 1–3 June 2022

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Alexander

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Blackah

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Hamilton
ORDERS

PAC 1998 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR GALARDI

Applicant

AND:
MS RENOSA

Respondent

AND:
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

DATE OF ORDER:

22 August 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children X born in 2017 and Y born in 2019 (“the children”).
2.The children live with the Mother in Melbourne.
3.Within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the Father shall enrol in and complete as soon as practical the program known as Taking Responsibility or other similar Men’s Behavioural Change program as recommended by G Counsellors and shall provide to the Mother his certificate of completion.
4.On the Father’s completion of the Taking Responsibility Program or other similar program pursuant to Order 3 herein, the children shall commence spending supervised time with the Father each alternate month on the last weekend of that month for a period of four hours on each occasion.
5.To facilitate the Father’s time with the children pursuant to Order 4 herein, the following shall occur:-
(a)The Mother shall nominate two private supervision agencies to the Father by email within 7 days of the date of these Orders and thereafter, subject to Order 3 herein, the Father shall arrange for the supervised time with the children to occur and advise the Mother in writing as to the date and time of the supervised contact during the months outlined in Order 4 herein;
(b)Both parties shall do all things necessary to ensure that they comply with intake and any other reasonable requirements of the private supervision agency;
(c)The Father shall be solely liable for the cost of the supervision.

6.The children will have FaceTime communication with the Father on the first and third Sunday of each month between 6:00pm and 6:30pm and the Mother shall provide the Father within 7 days of the date of these Orders with a mobile phone number for this purpose and the Mother shall do all things necessary to ensure that the children are available to speak with the Father and keep the Father advised of any change to…

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 Galardi & Renosa

Details

AGLC: Galardi & Renosa [2022] FedCFamC2F 1108
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1108
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was a final hearing for the determination of parenting orders for two minor children, X and Y. The Court was required to determine whether the children should reside with the father or the mother, and if so, what arrangements should be made for contact between the children and the non-resident parent. The Court also had to determine who should have sole parental responsibility for the children. The Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") made submissions and proposed orders. The mother sought sole parental responsibility for the children and for them to reside with her. The father sought sole parental responsibility for the children, or, in the alternative, that they reside with the mother but that he have unsupervised access to them. The Court found that the children should reside with the mother in Melbourne and that she should have sole parental responsibility for them. The Court also found that the father should be required to complete a behavioural change program before he could have any contact with the children. The Court made orders that the father could have fortnightly supervised contact with the children, and FaceTime communication with them on alternate Sundays, once he had completed the program. The Court also made orders in relation to the sharing of information between the parties, the provision of gifts to the children by the father, and the disclosure of the children's school reports by the mother.

Orders