HAZELWOOD & DESANTOS - [2019] FCCA 1909

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAZELWOOD & DESANTOS

[2019] FCCA 1909

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting proceedings – proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – order made.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.39

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.8.02

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.79

Cases cited:

Morris & Rosetti [2017] FamCA 249

Re W: Publication Application (1997) 137 FLR 205

Applicant:

MS HAZELWOOD

Respondent:

MR DESANTOS

File Number:

PAC 1987 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

2 July 2019

Date of Last Submission:

2 July 2019

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

12 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ms Monastiriotis

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms Maatouk

ORDERS

The parenting and property proceedings are forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta. The Family Court of Australia is respectfully requested to consider placement of this matter in its Magellan List.
Proceedings are adjourned to 3 September 2019 at 9:30am for mention before the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hazelwood & Desantos is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 1987 of 2019

MS HAZELWOOD

Applicant

And

MR DESANTOS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The within Reasons for Judgment relate to this Court’s Order of 2 July 2019 that these parenting and property proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta.
The subject child is [X] born … 2008.
The father was born on … 1982. The mother was born on … 1982.
The child is currently living with the mother.
The mother alleges that the father has perpetrated not only serious physical violence upon her but coercive controlling violence upon her, including serious threatening behaviour. The mother alleges that the police have recommended that she remains in hiding with the child. The mother alleges that the father has threatened to commit suicide. She alleges that the father may have a bipolar psychiatric condition.
The mother alleges that there has been a previous Apprehended Domestic Violence Order made in 2017 for her protection. She alleges that the father committed numerous breaches of this order in relation to which he was jailed (the father refers to having been jailed for about 8 months). She alleges that the father breached this order whilst in jail, having previously been jailed for an earlier breach of this order. She alleges that the father had also been convicted of an assault upon her and in relation to which the jail sentence related.
The mother alleges the father is a drug user including use of the drug known as ice. The father for his part, alleges that the mother was and is still a frequent user of the illicit drug ice.
The father alleges that the mother exercised inappropriate corporal punishment upon the child. He alleges that the child has been frequently absent from school in the mother’s…

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 HAZELWOOD & DESANTOS

Details

AGLC: Hazelwood and Desantos [2019] FCCA 1909
Case: [2019] FCCA 1909
Decision Date: 12 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved were Hazelwood and Desantos. The dispute concerned parenting and property proceedings that had been transferred to the Family Court of Australia. The decision was made by Judge Newbrun.

The court was required to determine the appropriate forum for the ongoing parenting and property proceedings and to make consequential orders regarding the transfer and future listing of the matter.

Judge Newbrun ordered that the parenting and property proceedings be forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta. The court respectfully requested that the Family Court of Australia consider placing this matter in its Magellan List, a specialist list designed for complex cases. The proceedings were then adjourned for mention before the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta on 3 September 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parenting and property proceedings are forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta. The Family Court of Australia is respectfully requested to consider placement of this matter in its Magellan List.

Proceedings are adjourned to 3 September 2019 at 9:30am for mention before the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta.

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.