Gantry & Chiswick - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1044

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Gantry & Chiswick [2022] FedCFamC2F 1044

File number(s): MLC 14123 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE

Date of judgment: 10 August 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - Parenting – parents have equal shared parental responsibility – competing applications to award sole parental responsibility for education – practicality of giving mother sole parental responsibility for education when children live with father – mother’s mental health, capacity and judgment considered – mother’s ability to foster relationships with third parties considered – held that father have sole parental responsibility for education of all of the children.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 61DA (2), 61DA (4).

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 62

Date of hearing: 15 July 2022

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Patterson

Solicitor for the Applicant: Perry Weston Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: Appeared in Person

Solicitor for the Respondent: None
ORDERS

MLC 14123 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR GANTRY

Applicant

AND:
MS CHISWICK

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

10 AUGUST 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order (2) of the orders made by Judge Carter on 21 February 2020 be dismissed.
2.Subject to order (3) below, the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X born in 2005, Y born in 2006 and Z born in 2009 (collectively, the ‘children’).
3.The father have sole parental responsibility with respect to the education of the children.
4.The father is to notify the mother of the dates and times of all Parent Teacher Interviews pertaining to the children and provide to the mother copies of all school reports, school notices and details of extracurricular activities of the children.
5.The father is to provide to the mother all information he receives relating to the participation of Z as a ‘team member’ at any future Sporting Team Championships in which she participates as a ‘team member’.
6.The amount of costs specified in order (6) of the orders of 17 February 2022 be paid by the mother to the father within 21 days of the date of this order.
7.The Amended Response of the mother is otherwise dismissed.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 Gantry & Chiswick has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g)…

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 Gantry & Chiswick

Details

AGLC: Gantry & Chiswick [2022] FedCFamC2F 1044
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1044
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a dispute between Mr Gantry (the father) and Ms Chiswick (the mother) regarding parental responsibility for the education of their three children, X, Y, and Z. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) by Judge Blake, who was tasked with deciding whether the father should have sole parental responsibility for the education of the children, as sought by the father, or whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the education of at least one of the children, as sought by the mother. The court was also required to consider various other issues raised by the mother, including the supervision of the maternal grandmother, breaches of confidentiality, and related matters.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the best interests of the children, Judge Blake determined that sole parental responsibility for the education of the children should be awarded to the father. The court found that it was impractical for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the education of the children due to the living arrangements, the fact that X and Y do not spend face-to-face time with their mother, and the fact that X and Y already attend a school that the mother opposes. Additionally, the court was concerned about the mother's capacity to make decisions in the best interests of the children and her ability to maintain a working relationship with the people she would need to in order to take responsibility for education matters.

In light of these findings, Judge Blake made orders that the father have sole parental responsibility for the education of the children, subject to certain conditions. These conditions include the father providing the mother with information relating to the children's participation in the Sporting Team Championships, keeping her informed of all matters pertaining to the children's education, and providing her with copies of their school reports and details of parent teacher interviews. The court also made an order that the mother pay the father the amount of the costs order made by the Court on 17 February 2022 within 21 days of the date of this order. The court declined to make any order requiring the father to supervise the children's time with the maternal grandmother, or any order in relation to breach of confidentiality and related matters.

Orders