LOFFLER-WINGROVE and WINGROVE - [2015] FCWA 55

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: LOFFLER-WINGROVE and WINGROVE [2015] FCWA 55

CORAM: WALTERS J

HEARD: 24, 25, 26, 29 & 30 JUNE 2015

DELIVERED : 30 JUNE 2015 (Ex tempore)

FILE NO/S: PTW 2440 of 2013

BETWEEN: MS LOFFLER-WINGROVE
Applicant
AND
MR WINGROVE
Respondent

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING ISSUES – Where parties had implemented a day about arrangement – Where the day about arrangement has been destructive and destabilising for the children – Where equal time is not in the best interests of the children – Where father highly critical of mother – Where father is antagonistic towards mother's new partner – Where father's proposals involve separation of siblings – Case turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr F. Castiglione QC
Respondent: Mr M. Rynne

Solicitors:

Applicant: Leach Legal
Respondent: Carr & Co

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

Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407
Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53
Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Hamish & Brighton [2014] FamCAFC 242
Jets & Maker (No 2) [2011] FMCAfam 1473
Marsden & Winch (No 3) [2007] FamCA 1364
Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
McLay & McLay (1996) FLC 92‑667
Mills & Watson (2008) 39 Fam LR 52
Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375
MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461
Mulvaney & Lane (2009) FLC 93-404
Re G Children's Schooling (2000) FLC 93-025
Taylor & Barker (2007) FLC 93-345

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

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and general observations

1Before the Court are the parties' competing applications relating to parenting orders for their children [Child A] and [Child B]. I propose to deliver ex tempore reasons. They will be inelegant for that reason. Also, they may not be comprehensive, but I will do the best I can in the time available to me. I reserve the right to revisit these Reasons and amend them if I see fit, although the law says that I cannot change the substance of the determinations I am about to make.
2I have elected to deliver ex tempore reasons because, in my view, it is imperative that these proceedings be brought to an end as soon as possible. I commented when the matter came before me immediately before the commencement of the trial that the day-about shared care arrangement currently in place is clearly not in the best interests of these children. I was assured by the father's solicitor that the arrangement was no longer in effect, and that it had ceased in February 2015. However, I was later advised by letter from the solicitors for the father that, in fact, it had not been terminated and the day-about arrangement was continuing to operate. Indeed, it continues to operate…

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 LOFFLER-WINGROVE and WINGROVE

Details

AGLC: LOFFLER-WINGROVE and WINGROVE [2015] FCWA 55
Case: [2015] FCWA 55
Decision Date: 30 JUNE 2015 (Ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Family Court of Australia involved Loffler-Wingrove and Wingrove, parents of three children, who were litigating over the implementation of a day about arrangement for the children. The parents had previously agreed to a day about arrangement, but it had proven to be destructive and destabilising for the children. The mother sought to alter the arrangement to address these issues. The father, however, argued for the continuation of the day about arrangement, believing it to be in the children's best interests.

The court was required to determine whether the existing day about arrangement was in the children's best interests and, if not, what alternative arrangements should be made. The court considered the impact of the current arrangement on the children, the father's criticism of the mother, and his antagonism towards her new partner. Additionally, the court examined the father's proposals for separation of the siblings and whether they would better serve the children's interests.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the day about arrangement was not in the children's best interests due to the destabilisation and distress it caused. The court also considered the father's highly critical attitude towards the mother and his antagonistic behaviour towards her new partner, which created an environment of conflict and instability. The court concluded that equal time was not suitable in this particular case, as it would not serve the best interests of the children. The court ordered a modified parenting arrangement that aimed to provide stability and reduce conflict for the children.

Orders