Legal Research
Cases
Hansen & Kane

Hansen & Kane

Case [2022] FedCFamC2F 949 19 July 2022

Review of Registrar’s Decision

Parenting Arrangements

Best Interests of the Child

Unilateral Relocation

Protection from Harm

Meaningful Relationship

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Hansen & Kane [2022] FedCFamC2F 949

File number(s): NCC 3876 of 2021

Judgment of: DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND

Date of judgment: 19 July 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Review of a registrar’s decision – Where the mother unilaterally relocated with the child in September 2021 – Where the registrar made orders for the child to live with the mother and reside in her new residence – Where the father seeks a review of the totality of the registrar’s decision – Where the father seeks for the mother to return with the child to their former location or for change of residence if the mother remains residing in her current residence – Where it is not in the best interests of the child to relocate with the mother – Review application dismissed

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA 69ZW

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 256(1)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 14.05, 14.07

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998 (NSW) s 245D

Cases cited:
Attwill & Marden [2018] FCCA 1401

Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93–637; [2015] FamCAFC 36

Barendregt v. Grebliunas [2022] SCC 22

Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647

Henley & Henley [2019] FamCA 101

Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518; [2007] FamCA 520

Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343; [2007] FamCA 1230

Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd trading as Cyndan Chemicals [2012] NSWSC 935

Sigley v Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439; [2011] FamCAFC 22

Stott & Holgar & Anor [2017] FamCAFC 152

Stringer & Nissen (No. 2) (2019) FLC 93-922; [2019] FamCAFC 185

Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 158

Date of hearing: 6 May 2022

Place: Sydney (via videolink)

Solicitor for the Applicant: Harpers Legal

Solicitor for the Respondent: Winder Lawyers

ORDERS

NCC 3876 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR HANSEN

Applicant

AND:
MS KANE

Respondent

order made by:

DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND

DATE OF ORDER:

19 July 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Review filed on 7 February 2022 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment…

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 Hansen & Kane

Details

AGLC: Hansen & Kane [2022] FedCFamC2F 949
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 949
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter concerns an application for review of orders made by a senior judicial registrar in respect of parenting arrangements for the child, X, who is now over two years of age. The child’s parents separated prior to the child’s birth and the child has been living with the mother. The father initially spent limited time with the child, comprising of a few hourly visits, approximately three or four times per week. In August 2020 the parties reached agreement for the child to spend time with the father each week from 2:45 pm on Friday until 2:45 pm on Sunday. That arrangement continued for a little over a year until September 2021 when the mother relocated to Town C in northern New South Wales. The orders made by the senior judicial registrar provided for the mother to continue living in Town C and for the child to spend time with the father for one week per month in City B. The father’s application for review seeks orders for the mother to return with the child to City B. He proposes that the previous parenting arrangements that were agreed to in August 2020 be resumed. Alternatively, in the event of the mother not returning with the child to City B, he proposes that the child live with him and spend time with the mother for one week each month unless otherwise agreed between the parties. The mother opposes the father’s application and contends she would suffer significant hardship if she were forced to abandon the accommodation that has become available for herself, the child and the child’s new half-brother, who was born this year. I have dismissed the father’s application for review on the basis that he has failed to establish that the mother is lacking in appropriate parenting capacity. I am further satisfied that requiring the mother to return to live in City B would result in her being placed in a situation where she would find it difficult to find appropriate accommodation for herself and the child. That outcome would not be in the best interests of the child. The application for review filed on 7 February 2022 is dismissed.

Orders