Griggs & Oduro (No 2) - [2022] FedCFamC2F 703

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Griggs & Oduro (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 703

File number(s): ADC 5103 of 2018

Judgment of: JUDGE DICKSON

Date of judgment: 1 June 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - Parenting – almost 6 year old child - final consent orders from January 2020 for equal shared parental responsibility and shared care arrangement –mother reopened parenting proceedings in February 2021 –mother has withheld the child from the care of the father on three occasions since final orders were entered into on the basis of abuse allegations – mother has continued to make allegations that the father physically and sexually abuses the child - where the child has been forensically interviewed on multiple occasions – where the mother’s allegations have not been substantiated – where mother seeks at Trial for the father’s time with the child to be terminated or in the alternative occur on a limited supervised basis – where father seeks for the child to live in his primary care due to the mother’s conduct and failure to support the child’s relationship with him – where the mother and her family members hold an implacable view that the child has been abused by the father – where both parties seek a finding of the other being an unacceptable risk to the child - where if the child continues to live in the mother’s primary care his relationship with the father will be compromised – no unacceptable risk in the father’s care – where Court has little confidence in the mother’s ability to support the child’s relationship with his father - where it is in the child’s best interests for there to be a reversal of primary care and sole parental responsibility to the father – for the mother’s time with the child to be suspended for a period of time and then gradually increased over time – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports such orders being made

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, ss 60A, 60B, 60CC, 61DA

Cases cited:
Andrew v Delaine [2009] FamCAFC 182

Johnson & Page [2007] FamCA 1235, (2007) FLC 93-344

Jurchenko & Foster [2014] FamCAFC 127

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69.

Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520

Vassser & Taylor-Black (2007) FLC 93-329

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 418

Date of last submission/s: 25 May 2022

Date of hearing: 7-10 March 2022 & 15-17 March 2022 & 25 May 2022

Place: Adelaide

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Anderson

Solicitor for the Applicant: Stanley & Co

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Praolini

Solicitor for the Respondent: Adelaide Legal Solutions

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Bailey

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Georgina Parker Lawyers
ORDERS

ADC 5103 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS GRIGGS

Applicant

AND:
MR ODURO

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE DICKSON

DATE OF ORDER:

1 JUNE 2022

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.All previous parenting…

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 Griggs & Oduro (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Griggs & Oduro (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 703
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 703
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Griggs & Oduro (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 703, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the final parenting orders for a child born in 2016, now aged 5 years and 11 months. The court considered competing applications from both the mother and father, focusing on whether the child should live with the mother or the father, and if so, under what conditions. The court found that the father should have sole parental responsibility, and the child should live with him. The mother's time with the child was to be suspended for six weeks and then gradually reinstated, following the mother's participation in personal therapy. The court also made orders for the child's communication with both parents, their capacity to provide for the child's needs, and the impact of changes in the child's circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents, while also protecting the child from physical or psychological harm.

Orders