Garrido & Garrido - [2024] FedCFamC2F 634

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Garrido & Garrido [2024] FedCFamC2F 634

File number(s): HBC 242 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 14 May 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting – ex tempore reasons – application for final consent orders to be made at close of mother’s case - whether proposed consent minute of final orders in the best interests of the child – cessation of time between father and one child – whether court need be satisfied orders are in children’s best interest – whether alleged unacceptable risk exists – nature and scope of duty of court when making parenting orders – Division 12A of Part VII – final consent orders made

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases cited: Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 27

Date of hearing: 6-8 May 2024

Place: Hobart

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Trezise

Solicitor for the Applicant: Butler McIntyre & Butler

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Scott

Solicitor for the Respondent: Storm Bay Law

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr McKenna

The Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Higgs, Dobson Mitchell Allport
ORDERS

HBC 242 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS GARRIDO

Applicant

AND:
MR GARRIDO

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

14 MAY 2024

BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.There be orders, declarations and notations made in terms of the document entitled “Minute of Consent Order”, attached hereto and marked “A”, signed by the parties and the counsel for the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer and dated 8 May 2024, including amendments pronounced by the Court on 14 May 2024 with the agreement of all parties.

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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
“A”
MINUTE OF CONSENT ORDER
Recitals
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.This is a parenting Order made by consent between the Applicant Mother (“Ms Garrido”), the Respondent Father (“Mr Garrido”) (collectively, “the Parents”), and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) (collectively, “the Parties”).
B.This Order concerns the children X (born 2010) (“X”) and Y (born 2011) (“Y”) (collectively, “the Children”).
C.In arriving at this Order, the Parties have had…

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 Garrido & Garrido

Details

AGLC: Garrido & Garrido [2024] FedCFamC2F 634
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 634
Decision Date: 14 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garrido & Garrido involved a dispute between Ms Garrido, the mother, and Mr Garrido, the father, concerning the parenting arrangements for their children. The matter was heard in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary focus of the case was to determine whether final consent orders, which were proposed by the parties, were in the best interests of the child, particularly regarding the cessation of time between the father and one of the children.

The court needed to address several legal issues, including whether the court was required to be satisfied that the proposed orders were in the best interests of the children, whether there was an alleged unacceptable risk, and the nature and scope of the court's duty when making parenting orders under Division 12A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court also had to consider the cessation of time between the father and one of the children and whether this was in the best interests of that child.

Judge Tagliari examined the evidence and submissions made by both parties, as well as the recommendations of the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court concluded that the proposed consent orders were in the best interests of the children, and that there was no unacceptable risk to the welfare of the children. The court found that the proposed arrangements were fair and reasonable and would adequately provide for the children's needs. The court also noted that the cessation of time between the father and one child was appropriate and would not be detrimental to the child's welfare.

The court made final consent orders in terms of the document entitled “Minute of Consent Order”, attached to the judgment, which was signed by the parties, their counsel, and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The form of the order was subject to the entry in the Court’s records, and the copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment could be subject to review or variation under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

HBC 242 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS GARRIDO

Applicant

AND:

MR GARRIDO

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

14 MAY 2024

BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. There be orders, declarations and notations made in terms of the document entitled “Minute of Consent Order”, attached hereto and marked “A”, signed by the parties and the counsel for the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer and dated 8 May 2024, including amendments pronounced by the Court on 14 May 2024 with the agreement of all parties.

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.

File number(s):	HBC 242 of 2023
Judgment of:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
Date of judgment:	14 May 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – parenting – ex tempore reasons – application for final consent orders to be made at close of mother’s case - whether proposed consent minute of final orders in the best interests of the child – cessation of time between father and one child – whether court need be satisfied orders are in children’s best interest – whether alleged unacceptable risk exists – nature and scope of duty of court when making parenting orders – Division 12A of Part VII – final consent orders made
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	27
Date of hearing:	6-8 May 2024
Place:	Hobart
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Trezise
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Butler McIntyre & Butler
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Scott
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Storm Bay Law
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr McKenna
The Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Higgs, Dobson Mitchell Allport

HBC 242 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS GARRIDO Applicant
AND:	MR GARRIDO Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:	14 MAY 2024