GUNST & DITTERSDORF - [2019] FamCA 126

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GUNST & DITTERSDORF

[2019] FamCA 126

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – International relocation – Where the mother seeks to relocate to her country of birth with the child – Where the father opposes relocation and seeks that the child live with the parents on a week about basis in Australia – Whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child by reason of his history of violence and anabolic steroid use – Where the father has numerous criminal convictions of a violent nature – Where Domestic Violence Orders have been made against the father for the protection of five of his previous partners, including the mother – Where the father has breached Domestic Violence Orders and bail conditions on numerous occasions – Where the father lacks insight into his damaging behaviour and shows no remorse – Where the father presents an unacceptable risk of physical and psychological harm to the child which cannot be ameliorated by supervision – Where it is in the best interests of the child to permit relocation – Where the child will live with the mother in the Netherlands, have limited communication with the father and spend time with the father only as agreed by the mother.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71
Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637
Colgan & Colgan [2014] FamCA 828
Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344
M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Mahoney & Houston [2018] FamCA 71
Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-975
N and S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655

APPLICANT:

Mr Gunst

RESPONDENT:

Ms Dittersdorf

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Fotheringham

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

1281

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

8 March 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Carew J

HEARING DATE:

25 - 27 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT:

Self-represented

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr McGregor

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Simpson, Simpson Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Haddrick

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Fotheringham, Legal Aid Queensland

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

All previous parenting orders be discharged.
X born … 2016 (“the child”) be removed from the Family Law Watchlist forthwith.
The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.
The child live with the mother.
The mother be permitted to change the child’s place of residence to the Netherlands and travel with her internationally.
The father be restrained and an injunction hereby issues restraining him from spending time with the child unless the mother has given prior written consent to the father spending time with the child.
Save as provided in this Order, the father be restrained and an injunction hereby issues restraining him from communicating with the child unless the mother has given prior written consent to the father communicating with the child.
The father be at liberty to communicate with the child by FaceTime or other equivalent each Sunday at 8.00am (local time where…

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 GUNST & DITTERSDORF

Details

AGLC: GUNST & DITTERSDORF [2019] FamCA 126
Case: [2019] FamCA 126
Decision Date: 8 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Justice Carew considered a dispute between Gunst and Dittersdorf. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal matter brought before the court for determination.

The central legal issue before Justice Carew was to resolve the disagreement between the parties, Gunst and Dittersdorf. The specific legal questions arising from their dispute required the court's adjudication.

Justice Carew's reasoning and the legal principles applied in reaching a decision are not elaborated upon in the provided text. The judgment of the court, including the final orders or outcome of the proceedings between Gunst and Dittersdorf, is also not specified.

Orders