Jiang & Yip

[2017] FamCA 224

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JIANG & YIP [2017] FamCA 224

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Final orders – With whom the child shall spend time – Consideration of the rule in Rice & Asplund – Where father sought variation of his time with the child – Where mother opposed – Where father argued that court had to consider best interest of the child – Where no changed circumstances other than the usual course of events – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Field & Nalder (1987) FLC 91-813 King & Finneran (2001) FLC 93-079 Lowe v Lowe (Unreported, High Court of Australia, Mason CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ, 6 April 1990) Miller & Harrington (2008) FLC 93-383 Poisat & Poisat [2014] FamCAFC 128 Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 Smythe & Holly & Anor [2007] Fam CA 302 SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93-363 State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Stenhouse Ltd (1997) (Aust Torts Reports 81-423)

APPLICANT:

Mr Jiang

RESPONDENT: Ms Yip

FILE NUMBER: ADC 5456 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 13 April 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Berman J

HEARING DATE: 7 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Heinrich

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Tessa Hume

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Bowler

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Douglas Hoskins Legal

Orders

1. That the substantive Application filed 2 August 2016 is dismissed.

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 Jiang & Yip 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 ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 5456  of 2007

Mr Jiang

Applicant

And

Ms Yip

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION  

1. The parties have been in conflict over the parenting arrangements in respect of B born in 2007 (“the child”).

2. By Initiating Application filed 2 August 2016, Mr Jiang (“the father”) seeks parenting orders summarised as follows:-

   (1)That the child live with the parties on a week about basis;

   (2)That the child spend time with each of the parties on Chinese New Year;

   (3)That each party be permitted to take the child overseas for a period of two weeks during the Christmas school holidays in alternate years;

   (4)That each party be permitted to attend and participate in the child’s schooling and extra-curricular activities;

   (5)That the child be enrolled in and withdrawn from extra-curricular activities only with the written agreement of the parties;

   (6)That the child shall be in the father’s care for a period of time commencing …and concluding … to celebrate the birthday of the child’s half-sister;