In The Marriage of Patsalou

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal by the husband, George Patsalou, against orders made by a trial judge concerning the guardianship, custody, and access to the parties' two young children. The dispute arose after the parties' separation, with the wife having obtained restraining orders against the husband due to his abusive behaviour and threats. Interim orders had granted the wife interim custody, and the trial judge ultimately made orders for joint guardianship, with the wife having custody and the husband reasonable access.

The husband's appeal raised three primary issues. Firstly, he contended that the trial judge's handling of the evidence regarding domestic violence and his denigration of the wife was inappropriate. Secondly, the husband argued that the trial judge erred by referring to a body of research on the effects of inter-spousal violence on children without this research forming part of the evidence before the court and without affording the parties an opportunity to make submissions on it. Thirdly, the husband submitted that the trial judge's reasons for judgment were not adequately supported by the evidence presented, particularly in light of the testimony from his own witnesses.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding that allegations of domestic violence are highly relevant in custody and access proceedings, as individuals engaging in such behaviour present poor role models for children. The court affirmed that the trial judge's approach was consistent with established authority, referencing *Jaeger (1994) FLC 92,492*. Regarding the reference to research, the court held that the trial judge did not rely on the research to support her findings but rather noted it as a general observation about the subject matter. The court also found that the trial judge did not extrapolate from the cited research or refer to specific points within it, and importantly, she acknowledged that there was no specific evidence before her regarding the effect of the violence on the children. Finally, the court concluded that the trial judge's findings were open to her on the evidence, were entirely consistent with it, and that she had properly accepted the conclusions of the psychologist who prepared the Family Report.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant husband was ordered to pay the respondent wife's costs of the appeal, fixed at $2,000.