Keramati & Sehat - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1182

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Keramati & Sehat [2022] FedCFamC2F 1182

File number(s): PAC 4548 of 2018

Judgment of: JUDGE OBRADOVIC

Date of judgment: 2 September 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – limited issues – final consent orders for mother to have sole parental responsibility for the child – final consent orders for child to live with mother – allegations of family violence – lack of insight – parenting capacity – child to spend no time with the father until the age of sixteen.

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

Cases cited: Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4
Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100
Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1
Starr & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 82

Date of last submission/s: 24 August 2022

Date of hearing: 22-24 August 2022

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Hill

Solicitors for the Applicant: Farah Lawyers, Solicitors & Barristers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Sperling

Solicitor for the Respondent: Legal Aid NSW Domestic Violence Unit
ORDERS

PAC 4548 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR KERAMATI
Applicant

AND:
MS SEHAT

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE OBRADOVIC

DATE OF ORDER:

2 September 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The child, X born in 2011 shall spend no time with the applicant father, Mr Keramati, from the date of these orders until she turns 16 years of age.
2.Once X turns 16 years of age, she shall spend time with the father in accordance with her wishes.

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 by this Court under a pseudonym Keramati & Sehat has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE OBRADOVIC:

These are parenting proceedings regarding the parties’ only child, X who was born in 2011. The applicant in the proceedings is the child’s father, Mr Keramati and the respondent is the child’s mother, Ms Sehat.
At the time of hearing X is almost 11 years old. The last time she spent time with the father was in September 2018, although there have been a number of attempts at the child spending time…

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 Keramati & Sehat

Details

AGLC: Keramati & Sehat [2022] FedCFamC2F 1182
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved parenting proceedings between Mr Keramati and Ms Sehat, the parents of an 11-year-old child, X. The central issue before the court was the amount of time, if any, the child should spend with her father. The father sought supervised contact for 5 nights out of 14 each fortnight and half the school holidays, while the mother sought for the child to have no contact with the father. The court considered the relevant legal principles under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and found that the best interests of the child would be served by making an order for no time between the child and her father until she turned 16 years of age. The court found that the father had perpetrated family violence against the mother, and that the child had exhibited difficult behaviours upon returning from spending time with her father. The court also found that the father had a lack of insight into the difficulties with the relationship with his daughter and that there did not appear to be any meaningful relationship between them at present.

The court considered the primary and additional considerations outlined in s.60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and found that the risk of harm to the child from the father was unacceptable. The court found that the father's denials of violence, his behaviour at attending the child's school in 2018 and his continued lack of understanding and insight into the effects of parental conflict, all spoke against a capacity to be able to meet the child's psychological needs. The court also found that neither parent had demonstrated a capacity or willingness to facilitate a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent. The court found that the order which was in the child's best interest was an order for no time, subject to the child being able to spend time with the father in accordance with her wishes once she turned 16 years of age.

The final orders made by the court were that the child, X, shall spend no time with the father, Mr Keramati, from the date of these orders until she turns 16 years of age. Once X turns 16 years of age, she shall spend time with the father in accordance with her wishes. The court noted the finality of an order for no time and the mother's view that in the future there may be some potential benefit to the child spending time with the father. The court also noted the inherent support for X to be able to come to that decision herself when she is a little older.

Orders