Goodridge and Christie - [2014] FCCA 998

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOODRIDGE & CHRISTIE

[2014] FCCA 998

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Contravention – application by the father for contravention of final parenting orders by the mother – admitted breaches by the mother – whether mother contravened orders without “reasonable excuse” – consideration of “reasonable excuse” in respect of concern as to welfare of the child – objective test of “reasonable excuse” applied – consideration of whether to apply Subdivision E or Subdivision F of Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – mother found to have contravened orders without “reasonable excuse” – order made requiring the mother to enter into a bond in accordance with s.70NEC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for a period of 12 months on condition that the mother is to be of good behaviour during the period of the bond and comply with all current and future parenting orders.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.65DAC, Part VII, Division 13A, 70NAA, 70NAC, 70NAE, 70NAF, 70NEA, 70NEB, 70NEC, 70NFA

C & J [2001] FamCA 1486
Elspeth and Others v Peter [2007] FamCA 655
In the Marriage of Gaunt [1978] 33 FLR 148

Applicant:

MR GOODRIDGE

Respondent:

MS CHRISTIE

File Number:

DGC 387 of 2009

Judgment of:

Judge Whelan

Hearing date:

20 March 2014

Date of Last Submission:

20 March 2014

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

16 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Byrnes

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Carew Counsel Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent:

Respondent in person

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

The Mother breached Order 2 of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she relocated the child without consulting with the Father;
The Mother breached Order 2 of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she enrolled the child as ‘X’ at (omitted) College without consulting the Father;
The Mother breached Order 4(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 on 13 July 2013, 10 August 2013, 24 August 2013 and 7 September 2013 when she failed to deliver the child to the Father at 10.00 a.m.;
The Mother breached Order 4(b) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend the Father’s Day weekend with the Father;
The Mother breached Order 5(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father between 3 October 2013 and 6 October 2013;
The Mother breached Order 4(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time

with the Father on the weekends commencing 19 October 2013,

9 November 2013, 23 November 2013, 7 December 2013,

21 December 2013, 18 January 2014, 1 February 2014 and

15 February 2014;
The Mother breached Order 4(f) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father on Christmas Day 2013;
The Mother breached Order 4(d) of the…

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 Goodridge and Christie

Details

AGLC: Goodridge and Christie [2014] FCCA 998
Case: [2014] FCCA 998
Decision Date: 16 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Goodridge and Christie*, heard by Judge Whelan, the dispute concerned parenting orders and the respondent mother's compliance with previous court directions. The applicant father, Mr. Goodridge, sought orders relating to the children, while the respondent mother, Ms Christie, faced scrutiny regarding her adherence to court-ordered undertakings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent mother had breached the parenting orders previously made and, if so, what orders should be made to ensure the children's welfare and the mother's future compliance. This involved an assessment of the mother's conduct in light of the Family Law Act 1975.

Judge Whelan determined that the respondent mother had failed to comply with her obligations under the existing parenting orders. Applying the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975, specifically sections 70NEB(1)(d) and 70NEC, the court found it necessary to impose a bond to secure future compliance.

Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent mother, Ms Christie, enter into a bond for a period of 12 months. This bond was to be in the form and upon the conditions stipulated in a separate document annexed to the court's order, designated as "Bond".

Orders

Orders of the court

13.

Pursuant to s.70NEB(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1975, the Respondent Mother, MS CHRISTIE, enter into a bond for a period of 12 months in accordance with s.70NEC of the Family Law Act 1975, such bond to be in the form of and upon the conditions stated in the Bond annexed to the Order issued this day and marked “Bond”.

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.