Lamos & Radin (No 2) - [2022] FedCFamC2F 167

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Lamos & Radin (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 167

File number(s):	CAC2393/2017
Judgment of:	JUDGE HUGHES
Date of judgment:	18 February 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – parenting – father wishes to have children receive COVID-19 vaccinations – opposed by mother
Cases cited:	Family Law Act 1975 ss 65D, 65DAC, 67ZC
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	23
Date of last submission/s:	18 February 2022
Date of hearing:	18 February 2022
Place:	Canberra
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms Madigan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	In person
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Cruise

ORDERS

CAC2393/2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR LAMOS Applicant
AND:	MS RADIN Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE HUGHES
DATE OF ORDER:	18 FEBRUARY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Noting the father has sole parental responsibility for the child X, born in 2010, his application for a specific order in relation to having her vaccinated against COVID-19 is unnecessary and is dismissed.
Notwithstanding order 2 of the orders made on 16 February 2022 giving the parents equal shared parental responsibility, the father is hereby authorised to arrange for the child Y, born in 2015, to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus without the consent of the mother, provided Y consents to the vaccination.
Otherwise the application in a proceeding filed on 1 February 2022 and all other extant applications are hereby 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).

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 Lamos & Radin has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE HUGHES:

INTRODUCTION

These are parenting proceedings in which the father seeks orders to facilitate the two children of the parties receiving COVID-19 vaccinations.
The eldest child, Y, is aged 16. He lives with the mother and currently spends no time with the father. The father seeks orders compelling the mother to arrange for Y to be vaccinated.
The youngest child, X, is aged 11 and lives with the father. She currently spends little or no time with the mother. The father seeks permission to make all necessary arrangements to have her vaccinated.
The independent children’s lawyer (“the ICL”) supports the father’s application.
After hearing the matter earlier today, I made orders and gave a brief…

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 Lamos & Radin (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Lamos & Radin (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 167
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 167
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lamos and Radin (No 2), the father sought a specific order to have their two children vaccinated against COVID-19, which the mother opposed. The court was required to decide whether the father's application should be granted, considering the children's best interests and the existing parental responsibilities. The eldest child, aged 16, lived with the mother, while the youngest, aged 11, lived with the father. The father sought orders to compel the mother to arrange for the eldest child to be vaccinated and permission to arrange for the youngest child to be vaccinated without the mother's consent.

The court found that the father had sole parental responsibility for the youngest child and that his application for a specific order in relation to her vaccination was unnecessary, thus dismissing that part of the application. However, the court authorised the father to arrange for the eldest child to be vaccinated against COVID-19 without the mother's consent, provided the child consented. This decision recognised the child's age and right to self-determination, while also preventing further litigation over the issue.

The court dismissed the father's application in relation to the youngest child, as her father already had sole parental responsibility and was authorised to make decisions about major long-term issues concerning her, including vaccinations. The court also dismissed all other extant applications. The final orders reflect these decisions, ensuring that the children's health and well-being are prioritised while respecting their individual rights and the parents' responsibilities.

Orders