Kharal & Kharal - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1752

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Kharal & Kharal [2022] FedCFamC2F 1752

File number(s): PAC 6098 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment: 16 December 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Parental responsibility – Airport Watchlist Order – Best interests of the child – Final parenting Orders made.

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

Cases cited: Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 150

Date of hearing: 5–7 December 2022

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr McMahon and Ms Bateman

Solicitor for the Applicant: Inner West Solicitors Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Abdelraheem

Solicitor for the Respondent: Christina Lam & Associates

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Stolier

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Brian Samuel & Associates
ORDERS

PAC 6098 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR KHARAL

Applicant

AND:
MS KHARAL

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

DATE OF ORDER:

16 DECEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2018 (“the child”).
2.Until further order each party, Ms Kharal, born in 1981, and Mr Kharal, born in 1989, their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the said child, X born in 2018 either in the company of an adult or as an unaccompanied minor from the Commonwealth of Australia AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this Order by placing the name/names of the said child on the Airport Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child’s name on the Watchlist until the Court orders its removal.
3.The applicant father or the respondent mother may provide a copy of these Orders to the Consulate General of Country B at Sydney in the State of New South Wales.

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 Kharal & Kharal has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
Introduction

This final parenting hearing relates to the child X born in 2018 (“the child”).
The final parenting hearing…

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 Kharal & Kharal

Details

AGLC: Kharal & Kharal [2022] FedCFamC2F 1752
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1752
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kharal & Kharal, heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, involved a dispute between Mr Kharal and Ms Kharal regarding the parenting arrangements for their child, X. The case addressed issues of parental responsibility, the potential removal of the child from Australia, and the imposition of an Airport Watchlist Order. The court considered evidence from both parties, expert reports, and submissions from the Independent Children's Lawyer. Ultimately, the court found that it was in the best interests of the child for Ms Kharal to have sole parental responsibility, due to the father's history of family violence and lack of insight into his actions. The court also granted an order preventing the removal of the child from Australia and imposed an Airport Watchlist Order to safeguard against potential abduction. These measures were deemed necessary to protect the child from the risk of harm and to maintain the child's meaningful relationship with the mother. The court's final orders reflected these considerations, ensuring the child's safety and well-being.

Orders