HARRISON and CHARLTON - [2017] FCWA 144

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: HARRISON and CHARLTON [2017] FCWA 144

CORAM: DUNCANSON J

HEARD: 29 SEPTEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 31 OCTOBER 2017

FILE NO/S: PTW 5519 of 2014

BETWEEN: MR HARRISON
Applicant
AND
MS CHARLTON
Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILDREN - Interim orders sought to permit interstate relocation - Whether supervision of the children's time with the father is required - Application to appoint further expert witness

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B, s 60CA, s 60CC, s 61DA, s 65DAA
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms R Bunney
Respondent: Mr M Berry
Independent Children's Lawyer : Ms R

Solicitors:

Applicant: Cullen Macleod
Respondent: Thomson Family Lawyers
Independent Children's Lawyer : Law Firm A

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Banks v Banks (2015) FLC 93-637
Jopson v Lilwall (No 2) [2016] FamCAFC 262

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

1[Child A] born [in] 2003 and [Child B] born [in] 2005 are the children of [Mr Harrison] ("the father") and [Ms Charlton] ("the mother"). The parties are unable to agree about a number of matters in these interim parenting proceedings.
2The mother seeks permission to relocate the children to [Queensland] as soon as possible for a number of reasons including her health difficulties. The father, with whom only Child B currently spends supervised time, is opposed to the relocation. Other issues for determination include the requirement for supervision, whether a further expert report should be obtained and the time the children should spend with the parties on Christmas Day.
3The mother asserts the children are at risk in the care of the father. The father strenuously denies this and says they are safe in his care.

The orders sought by the mother

4The orders sought by the mother are contained in a minute of interim orders filed 1 September 2017. She seeks orders that the children live with her and she have permission to relocate them to Queensland. She seeks an order for sole parental responsibility.
5In relation to Child A the mother proposes that she spend time and communicate with the father in accordance with her wishes. In relation to Child B, the mother proposes that she spend supervised time with the father either in Perth or Queensland, each Queensland school holidays for a period of five consecutive days in the first week of the holidays for up to five hours on each day, supervised by Perth Children's Contact Service, or such other agency as nominated by the mother.
6The mother proposes that in the Christmas school holidays Child B spend supervised time with the father either in Perth or Queensland for a period of seven consecutive days, excluding Christmas Day for up to five hours on each day, supervised as above. After eight supervised visits the father is at liberty to obtain a supervision report.
7The mother proposes 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 HARRISON and CHARLTON

Details

AGLC: Harrison and Charlton [2017] FCWA 144
Case: [2017] FCWA 144
Decision Date: 31 OCTOBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrison and Charlton involved a dispute between the parents of two minor children. The father sought interim orders to permit the relocation of the children interstate, while the mother opposed this move. Additionally, the mother sought to appoint a further expert witness to provide evidence regarding the children's welfare. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving these issues.

The court had to determine whether the relocation of the children to another state was in their best interests and if supervision of the time the children spent with the father was necessary. The court also needed to consider whether the appointment of an additional expert witness would be beneficial in making informed decisions about the children's welfare.

The court concluded that the relocation of the children was not in their best interests. The court found that the father had not demonstrated a compelling reason for the move, and it would significantly disrupt the children's stability and relationships. The court also determined that supervision of the children's time with the father was necessary to ensure their safety and well-being. Regarding the appointment of an additional expert witness, the court found that the existing evidence was sufficient to make informed decisions and denied the mother's request.

The court issued interim orders preventing the relocation of the children and requiring supervision during their time with the father. The application to appoint an additional expert witness was dismissed.

Orders