HABIB & IBRAHIM - [2020] FamCA 512

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HABIB & IBRAHIM

[2020] FamCA 512

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – Best Interests – Where not appropriate to determine interim issues as sought by the parties pending receipt of the Single Expert Report – Interim proceedings adjourned generally pending receipt of the Single Expert Report.

Habib & Ibrahim [2018] FamCA 633
Habib & Ibrahim [2019] FamCA 116

APPLICANT:

Mr Habib

RESPONDENT:

Ms Ibrahim

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Bell

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3236

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

26 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

13 May 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Godden of Godden Lawyers

RESPONDENT – SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT:

Ms Ibrahim (aka Ms H)

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Bell of Stephen W Bell & Associates

Orders

That the father’s Application in a Case filed 8 April 2020 and the mother’s Response thereto be adjourned generally pending receipt of the Single Expert Report from Dr D.
Liberty to apply to relist on not less than 14 days’ notice.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Habib & Ibrahim has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3236 of 2016

Mr Habib

Applicant

And

Ms Ibrahim

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The child X now aged 11 has been the subject of litigation between his parents since 2016.
Previously after a six day hearing orders were made on 19 July 2018 on a final basis: Habib & Ibrahim [2018] FamCA 633. Those orders provided as follows:
(1)That all previous parenting orders in relation to the child X born … 2009 (“the child”) be discharged.
(2)That the child live with the father.
(3)That the father be at liberty to choose to have the child reside at the home of the paternal aunt Ms B for such period as determined by him in consultation with the paternal aunt and the therapist appointed pursuant to these orders.
(4)That the father have sole parental responsibility for major long term issues relating to the child.
(5)That prior to the father making decisions relating to major long term issues as to the child including but not limited to his health and education, the father shall notify the mother in writing, such writing to include SMS or email communication, of his proposal and seek her response in writing within 21 days and take into account the mother’s response provided such response is received within the stated period and…

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 HABIB & IBRAHIM

Details

AGLC: HABIB & IBRAHIM [2020] FamCA 512
Case: [2020] FamCA 512
Decision Date: 26 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were the father and the mother, who were engaged in a dispute concerning their children. The proceedings were before Foster J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The father had filed an Application in a Case on 8 April 2020, to which the mother had filed a Response.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the parenting arrangements for the children. This required the court to consider the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, and to make orders that were in the best interests of the children.

Foster J determined that it was necessary to obtain further expert evidence to assist in resolving the dispute. Accordingly, the court ordered that the father's application and the mother's response be adjourned generally, pending the receipt of a Single Expert Report from Dr D. The court also granted liberty to apply to relist the matter on not less than 14 days' notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the father’s Application in a Case filed 8 April 2020 and the mother’s Response thereto be adjourned generally pending receipt of the Single Expert Report from Dr D.

Liberty to apply to relist on not less than 14 days’ notice.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.