Keymer & Keymer (No 2)

Case [2023] FedCFamC1F 485


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Keymer & Keymer (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 485

File number(s): BRC 976 of 2019
Judgment of: GILL J
Date of judgment: 16 June 2023
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Family violence by the mother against the father – Emotional abuse by the mother – Unreliable allegations by the mother against the father – Manipulation of the child to further conflict between the parties – Consideration of the risk of mother spending time with the child balanced with the benefit of a meaningful relationship – Order for recognition time with the mother – Injunction heavily restraining mother’s communication with child – Time spent with mother to be determined by taking into account child’s wishes after a certain age  
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65DAA, 69ZW, 102NA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 - r 10.6

Cases cited:

Eastley & Eastley [2022] FedCFamC1A 101

Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Jollie & Dysart [2014] FamCAFC 149

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69

Malburon v Waldlow [2013] FamCAFC 191

Marsden & Winch (No 3) [2007] FamCA 1364

Phillips & Hansford (2019) 60 Fam LR 160

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 129
Date of hearing: 5-8 June 2023
Place: Canberra
Solicitor for the Applicant: Litigant in Person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Haddock
Solicitor for the Respondent: KPW Lawyers
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Cruise, Legal Aid, ACT

ORDERS

BRC 976 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS KEYMER

Applicant

AND:

MR KEYMER

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

GILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 JUNE 2023

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.That all previous parenting orders be discharged.

Parental Responsibility

2.That the respondent father (‘the father’) have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born 2011 (‘the child’).

3.That the father have sole parental responsibility for the purpose of applying for a passport to be issued for the child from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Commonwealth of Australia pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 or renewing a passport for the child, without the consent of the mother, and has leave pursuant to section 65Y(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 to take the child outside of the Commonwealth of Australia or permit the child to travel outside of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Lives with/spends time with

4.That the child live with the father.

5.That, until the child reaches the age of 15 years, the child spend time with the mother as follows:

(a)On one (1) occasion every three (3) months for no less than 4 hours on the following basis:

(i)The time to be professionally supervised by an agreed professional supervisor or, failing agreement, to occur at the D Contact Centre in City A;

(ii)The costs of the supervision to be shared equally between the parents; and

(iii)The first occasion will occur on…

Continue reading Keymer & Keymer (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Keymer & Keymer (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 485
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 485
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Keymer & Keymer (No 2) involved a dispute between parents over the care and custody of their child, X. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) proposed various restraints and orders to protect the parties and the child. The primary concern was the potential for emotional harm to X, including exposure to family conflict and manipulation by the mother.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate living arrangements for X, the exercise of parental responsibility, and the conditions under which X would spend time with the mother. The court had to balance the need to protect X from harm against the child's right to maintain a relationship with both parents. Additionally, the court considered the proposals by the ICL regarding the necessary restraints on the parties to ensure the safety and wellbeing of X.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the proposed restraints by the ICL were appropriate given the potential for emotional harm. The court accepted that these measures were necessary for the personal protection of both the father and the child. Consequently, the court granted orders largely as sought by the ICL. These orders stipulated that X would live with the father, with the father exercising sole parental responsibility. X was to spend supervised recognition time with the mother on specified dates, subject to agreement to vary or the mother's court attendance on the scheduled day.

The court's decision ensured that X would have a structured and safe environment to grow up in, while also allowing for a controlled relationship with the mother. This balanced approach aimed to mitigate the risks of emotional harm and support the best interests of the child.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The ICL proposes various restraints upon the parties in relation to what is said to X. Further restraints ae proposed upon the mother removing or approaching X, or approaching the father. Given the potential for emotional harm, including that caused by exposure to family conflict and manipulation by the mother, these restraints are appropriate for the personal protection of the father and the child.CONCLUSION AS TO PARENTING Orders will be made largely as sought by the ICL for X to live with the father, for the father to exercise sole parental responsibility, and for X to spend recognition time on a supervised basis with the mother. The orders will provide certain dates for the visits with X, subject to agreement to vary, or subject to the mother identifying that she has a court attendance on the scheduled day.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.