Klasson & Borisov - [2024] FedCFamC1F 636

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Klasson & Borisov [2024] FedCFamC1F 636

File number(s): SYC 2878 of 2022

Judgment of: CHRISTIE J

Date of judgment: 18 September 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – EX TEMPORE – Where father seeking review of senior judicial registrar’s decision to order professionally supervised time graduating to non-professionally supervised time with the mother –– Where mother seeking sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her – Where mother has a history of drug and alcohol misuse – Where mother receives psychological care – Consideration of risk to child – Application for review dismissed.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII

Cases cited:
B and B (1993) FLC 92–357; [1993] FamCA 143

Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637; [2015] FamCAFC 36

Goode v Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; [2006] FamCA 1346

Harridge v Harridge [2010] FamCA 445

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

N and S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92‑655; [1995] FamCA 139

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

Number of paragraphs: 44

Date of hearing: 18 September 2024

Place: Sydney

Applicant: Litigant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Todd

Solicitor for the Respondent: Long Saad Woodbridge Lawyers

Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Samuel, Brian Samuel & Associates
ORDERS

SYC 2878 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS BORISOV

Applicant

AND:
MR KLASSON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

CHRISTIE J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 SEPTEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The father has leave to review the decision of the Senior Judicial Registrar of 2 August 2024 out of time.
2.The mother has leave to show a copy of the report of Dr B dated 11 September 2023 to her partner, Mr C.
3.Otherwise, the Application for Review filed 28 August 2024 is dismissed.

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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, Klasson & Borisov, has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHRISTIE J:

This is an Application for Review of an interim parenting determination made by a Senior Judicial Registrar, and accordingly, will proceed as a hearing de novo.
The Application relates to the child X who was born in 2021 (“the…

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 Klasson & Borisov

Details

AGLC: Klasson & Borisov [2024] FedCFamC1F 636
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 636
Decision Date: 18 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Klasson & Borisov, the father, Klasson, sought a review of a decision made by a Senior Judicial Registrar, which directed that time with the child should progress from being supervised by a professional to unsupervised with the child's mother, Borisov. Borisov, on the other hand, sought sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her. Borisov had a history of drug and alcohol misuse, although she was currently receiving psychological care. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was tasked with addressing these competing claims and the best interests of the child.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Senior Judicial Registrar's decision, which permitted unsupervised time with Borisov despite her history of substance misuse, was in the best interests of the child. The court had to weigh the potential risks to the child against the benefits of the mother's involvement in the child's life. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the father's application for review, which was filed out of time, should be permitted and whether Borisov should be allowed to share a psychological report with her partner.

The court dismissed the father's application for review, finding that the Senior Judicial Registrar's decision was appropriate given the circumstances. The court considered that the mother's current psychological care and her efforts to address past issues made the risk of harm to the child sufficiently low. The court also found that permitting the mother to share the psychological report with her partner would not adversely affect the child. The father's application was dismissed as it was not in the best interests of the child to alter the existing arrangements. However, the court granted the father leave to review the decision out of time and allowed the mother to share the report with her partner.

In summary, the court upheld the Senior Judicial Registrar's decision, allowing the mother to have unsupervised time with the child, while permitting the father to seek a review out of time. The mother was also allowed to share the psychological report with her partner.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 2878 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS BORISOV

Applicant

AND:

MR KLASSON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

CHRISTIE J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 SEPTEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The father has leave to review the decision of the Senior Judicial Registrar of 2 August 2024 out of time.

2. The mother has leave to show a copy of the report of Dr B dated 11 September 2023 to her partner, Mr C.

3. Otherwise, the Application for Review filed 28 August 2024 is dismissed.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYC 2878 of 2022
Judgment of:	CHRISTIE J
Date of judgment:	18 September 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – EX TEMPORE – Where father seeking review of senior judicial registrar’s decision to order professionally supervised time graduating to non-professionally supervised time with the mother –– Where mother seeking sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her – Where mother has a history of drug and alcohol misuse – Where mother receives psychological care – Consideration of risk to child – Application for review dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII
Cases cited:	B and B (1993) FLC 92–357; [1993] FamCA 143 Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637; [2015] FamCAFC 36 Goode v Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; [2006] FamCA 1346 Harridge v Harridge [2010] FamCA 445 Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 N and S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92‑655; [1995] FamCA 139 SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Number of paragraphs:	44
Date of hearing:	18 September 2024
Place:	Sydney
Applicant:	Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Todd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Long Saad Woodbridge Lawyers
Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Samuel, Brian Samuel & Associates

SYC 2878 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS BORISOV Applicant
AND:	MR KLASSON Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 SEPTEMBER 2024