Ladbrook & Dodd - [2021] FedCFamC2F 532

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ladbrook & Dodd [2021] FedCFamC2F 532

File number(s): HBC 723 of 2018

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 10 December 2021

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – parenting – parental responsibility – presumption rebutted – father to have sole parental responsibility subject to consultation with mother

FAMILY LAW – parenting – with whom a child lives – where father is not child’s biological father – where child has been in father’s primary care – where mother has history of drug use and mental health issues – child to live primarily with father – mother’s time with the child to progress to unsupervised and significant time

FAMILY LAW – parenting – child’s name – where mother’s views require promotion of father’s role – hyphenated surname to be used – to promote relationship with both parents and sense of belonging to non-biological father’s family

FAMILY LAW – property

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B(1), 61B, 60CC, 64B, 65DAA, 65DAC, s79

Cases cited:
Aldridge & Keaton (2009) FLC 93-421

Beach and Stemmler (1979) FLC ¶90-692

Bulow and Bulow [2019] FamCAFC 3

Chapman and Ladbrook (1978) FLC ¶90-510

C & C (2005) FLC 93-220

Dieter & Dieter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA1346

Marriage of Hickey 30 Fam LR 355

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4

AJO & GRO (2005) FLC ¶93-218

Rankin & Rankin (2017) FLC ¶93-766

Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1

Stanford and Stanford [2012] HCA 52

Wagstaff and Wagstaff [2018] FCCA 927

W & W [2005] FamCa 430

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 259

Date of hearing: 20-21 & 27 September and 8 & 18 October 2021

Place: Hobart

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms M Ryan

Solicitor for the Applicant: Butler McIntyre & Butler

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Foster

Solicitor for the Respondent: Murdoch Clarke

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms S Watson

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
ORDERS

HBC 723 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS LADBROOK

Applicant

AND:
MR DODD

Respondent

AND: INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

20 DECEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Parenting Orders
(1)All previous orders concerning X born in 2016 (“the child”), are discharged.
(2)MR DODD (“the father”) have sole parental responsibility for the child subject to Order 3 hereof.
(3)Notwithstanding order (2), the father shall consult with MS LADBROOK (“the mother”) in relation to decisions concerning the child’s long-term care, welfare and development and seek to reach agreement with him. Should the father and mother fail to agree and subject to any subsequent court order, the father’s decision in relation to such issue/s will apply, and the filing of a subsequent application by the mother seeking judicial determination of the issue/s shall not prevent the father from in the first instance making a…

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 Ladbrook & Dodd

Details

AGLC: Ladbrook & Dodd [2021] FedCFamC2F 532
Case: [2021] FedCFamC2F 532
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns the determination of parenting and property orders for a child born in 2016. The child, X, was in the primary care of the father since February 2018. The mother sought shared parental responsibility, while the father sought sole parental responsibility. The Independent Children’s Lawyer recommended sole parental responsibility for the father. The court considered evidence from both parents, expert reports, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s input. The court found the father to be the primary carer and determined that sole parental responsibility should lie with him, subject to consultation with the mother regarding long-term care, welfare, and development decisions. The court ordered a gradual increase in the mother’s time with the child, starting with limited supervised time and progressing to unsupervised time based on conditions. The court also ordered the child’s surname to be hyphenated to promote a relationship with both parents. Regarding property, the court ordered a division of the proceeds of sale of the property, retention of personal property, and a superannuation split in favour of the mother. The court also made various injunctive orders to protect the child from potential harm. The court directed the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer to continue for 12 months to oversee the implementation of the orders and the mother’s progress in psychological treatment.

Orders