LEESE and LEESE - [2020] FCWA 30

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: LEESE and LEESE [2020] FCWA 30
CORAM: DUNCANSON J
HEARD: 11, 12, 13 September 2018, 29, 30, 31 January, 1 February, 24, 25, 26, 27 June and 7 November 2019
DELIVERED : 5 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S: PTW 7499 of 2014
BETWEEN: MS LEESE
Applicant
AND
MR LEESE
Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILDREN - where it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the health of one of the children and for the parents otherwise to share parental responsibility - where both parties are competent caring parents - where orders are made that the children live with the mother and spend increasing time with the father

PROPERTY - where it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order - where the husband made greater initial financial contributions - assessment of contributions to date of trial - adjustment to wife for s 75(2) factors - where consideration is to be given to the form of the orders

SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE - where it is found the wife is unable to support herself adequately - spousal maintenance ordered

CHILD SUPPORT - where the grounds for departure are established - where it is appropriate to depart from the administrative assessment of child support

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) s 116, s 117, s 124, s 125(2)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 11
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B, s 60CA, s 60CC, s 61DA, s 75, s 79
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr M Rynne
Respondent	:	Ms P Giles Self-Represented Litigant (7 November 2019)

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Carr & Co
Respondent	:	Lavan

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600
Dickons v Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244
Grier v Malphas (2016) 55 Fam LR 107
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Steinbrenner v Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193
Walmsley & Shepard [2017] FCWA 111
Jarrott v Jarrott [2012] FamCAFC 29

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Leese and Leese has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

INTRODUCTION

1[Ms Leese], the wife and [Mr Leese], the husband are unable to agree about the parenting arrangements for their children [Child A] aged 15 years and [Child B] aged 13 years. Currently the children live with the wife and spend time with the husband. The husband seeks orders which increase the time the children spend with him, to which the wife is opposed.

The parenting orders sought at trial

2The wife proposes that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children except in relation to Child B's medical and health matters in…

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 LEESE and LEESE

Details

AGLC: LEESE and LEESE [2020] FCWA 30
Case: [2020] FCWA 30
Decision Date: 5 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Leese v. Leese involved a dispute between the parties over the parenting of their children and the division of property following their separation. The case also touched on spousal and child support. The parents were both deemed competent and caring, but the court needed to determine the best interests of the children concerning their health and the overall division of parental responsibilities. Additionally, the court had to assess the financial contributions of both parties and decide on a just and equitable property settlement. The wife's ability to support herself and the appropriateness of child support were also evaluated.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included determining the allocation of parental responsibilities concerning the children's health, the division of property, and the consideration of spousal and child support. The court had to balance the best interests of the children with the competent care provided by both parents and consider the financial contributions and needs of both parties. The court also needed to assess the wife's capacity to support herself and decide whether to deviate from the administrative child support assessment.

The court found that it was in the best interests of the children for the mother to have sole parental responsibility regarding one child's health while the parents shared responsibility for the other child. The court acknowledged the husband's greater initial financial contributions and assessed the contributions to the date of the trial. Considering the factors outlined in section 75(2), the court made a property settlement order that was deemed just and equitable. The wife was found unable to support herself adequately, and spousal maintenance was ordered accordingly. The court found that the grounds for departure from the administrative child support assessment were established, and it was appropriate to adjust the child support amount.

The final orders included the children living with the mother and spending increasing time with the father, a property settlement order, spousal maintenance, and a departure from the administrative child support assessment. The court's decision ensured that the children's best interests were prioritised while also addressing the financial needs and contributions of both parents.

Orders