GOLDBECK & REDDOCK

[2020] FCCA 3135

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOLDBECK & REDDOCK [2020] FCCA 3135

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – concerning a child who is five years old – where the child lives with the father and spends time with the mother – where parties are in dispute about whether the child spends two or three nights a week with the mother – where the father alleges the mother may expose the child to family violence – whether there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in the mother’s care – whether increasing the child’s time with the mother may increase the chances of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents – not satisfied at this stage there is evidence to support the father’s allegations or concerns – the child is to spend three nights a week with the mother.  

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.60CC(3)

Applicant: MS GOLDBECK

Respondent: MR REDDOCK

File Number: DNC 326 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Young

Hearing date: 2 November 2020

Date of Last Submission: 2 November 2020

Delivered at: Darwin

Delivered on: 2 November 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Cook

Solicitors for the Applicant: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

The Respondent: Mr Reddock appearing on his own behalf

Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Romeo

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. The child X (“the child”) is to live with the father.

2. The child is to spend time with the mother each week from 3:30pm on Wednesday to 3:30pm on Saturday.

3. For Christmas 2020 the child shall spend time with the father from 6pm on Christmas Eve to 6pm on Christmas Day.

4. Unless otherwise specified or agreed prior to changeover in writing, all changeovers will occur at Woolworths, Suburb B Shopping Centre until the child begins school in February 2021

5. When the child begins school in February 2021 changeovers on the Wednesday will occur at school with the mother to collect the child after school on Wednesday.

6. That the parties and their legal representatives attend a Family Dispute Resolution Conference at the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission if suitable at a time to be arranged by Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.

7. The proceedings are adjourned to the trial call over list on 30 April 2021 at 11.30am.

8. The parties no less than seven (7) days prior to the call over date provide to the Court:

   (a)A brief Summary of Argument including Minute of Orders sought; and

   (b)A Trial plan indicating estimated length of trial sought and witnesses relied upon at trial.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Goldbeck & Reddock is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

DNC 326 of 2020

MS GOLDBECK

Applicant

And

MR REDDOCK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex-Tempore

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This is an interim parenting dispute concerning X who just turned five in September.  His parents are in dispute about whether X spends two or three nights a week with his mother.  The father, with whom X lives at the moment, has raised a number of concerns about the mother’s capacity to care for X.  Many of those, in my view, need not be considered in detail, considering that the father himself proposes that the child spend a significant time with his mother.  However, the father does raise a concern about the mother’s relationship with a Mr C, who the father alleges is a person with whom the mother has engaged in dispute or family violence with.

3. There is some evidence in the mother’s affidavit that would be supportive of some of the father’s concerns.  Particularly she says that, quite recently, she broke off that relationship with Mr C and Mr C continued to communicate with her.  The mother even went as far as to say that she was concerned that Mr C may have placed some software on her phone that allowed him to track her movements.  If that is true, that, unquestionably, would constitute family violence.  Whether or not the father’s concerns about family violence, as conventionally understood, that is, exposing the child to either physical violence or verbal or other conflict between Mr C and the mother, have substance is not clear. 

4. The father, while he raises that allegation, is unable to point to any evidence other than really the evidence I have mentioned that supports his concerns.  There was an investigation by the child welfare authorities, presumably in response to a notice of risk.  I am not sure quite what precipitated it, but that did not substantiate any allegations that the child was at risk of harm or neglect in the mother’s care or, indeed, the care of either party.  In those circumstances I think I can give significant weight to the opinion expressed by the family consultant that she did not consider family violence to be a current significant risk factor.  She was of the view that the reports of escalated conflict between the mother and the father were isolated.

5. The other issue the father raised was that he believed the mother was unemployed.  He is unemployed himself he told me, but he was concerned that the mother was unemployed, so he wondered how the mother would support the child.  In a context where the dispute is between two nights or three nights, I am not satisfied that is something I need to give any further consideration to. 

6. The family consultant was of the view that the father’s concerns about the mother’s capacity to care for the child were unstated and she was of the view that it was in the child’s best interests, taking into account the right of a child to a meaningful relationship with both parents, that that there be an increase in the child’s time with the mother from the current two nights a week, to three nights a week, towards the “end of the year”.

7. It is now 2 November and I consider that we are at the end of the year. While I have regard to the matters, generally, in section 60CC(3), and some of those matters I have discussed, the child has not expressed a view. The child appears to have a close relationship with both parents. There does not appear to be any practical difficulties about the child spending time with either parent. There is nothing to suggest that there is anything problematic about the capacity of each parent, though as I have said, the father has made various allegations. I am not satisfied at this stage that there is any evidence to support his allegations or concerns.

8. In relation to the issue of family violence at subsection (3)(j), I have addressed that issue.  As far as I am aware there is no family violence order that applies to any party. 

9. In the circumstances I consider that the real issue, given the position of the parties, two nights or three nights a week, is whether the increase of three nights a week would be of benefit to the child in that it would increase the chances of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents, in particular the mother in this case, as the child lives with the father.  I am satisfied that is the case and I am satisfied that the recommendations of the family consultant ought to be adopted. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Young

Associate: 

Date: 17 November 2020