Macey and Liddell and Anor - [2018] FamCA 1027

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MACEY & LIDDELL AND ANOR

[2018] FamCA 1027

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – With whom a child spends time – Where the mother opposes the child spending any time with the father – Where the father seeks to spend time with the child under professional observation at a contact centre – Where the father has spent lengthy time in jail – Where there are concerns about the father’s history of anger, aggression, alcohol and illicit substance use – Where the father’s compliance with parole conditions is a concern – Where the father has not engaged in therapy for anger management – Whether risk to the child is outweighed by the benefit of spending time with the father.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 61DA

Dieter & Dieter [2011] FamCAFC 82
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101
MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461

APPLICANT:

Mr Macey

1st RESPONDENT:

Mr Liddell

2nd RESPONDENT:

Ms Macey

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Nicholas Eid Lawyer

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

1539

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

7 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Praolini

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Angela Ferdinandy

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Mr Tredrea

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Carmen Wood & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Ms Ross

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Clelands Adelaide Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Lewis

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Nicholas Eid Lawyer

Orders

That the Amended Application filed 20 September 2018 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Macey & Liddell and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 1539 of 2014

Mr Macey

Applicant

And

Mr Liddell

First Respondent

And

Ms Macey
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Mr Liddell (“the mother”) and Mr Macey (“the father”) are the parents of X born in 2012 (“the child”).
The child lives primarily with the mother and spends limited time with Ms Macey (“the paternal grandmother”) pursuant to orders made 29 September 2018.
By Amended Application in a Case filed 20 September 2018 the father seeks orders that he spend time with the child at the Suburb E Contact Centre on 12 occasions with an observational report being provided at the conclusion of the sixth and twelfth sessions.
The application is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Macey and Liddell and Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] FamCA 1027
Decision Date: 7 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Macey and Liddell and Anor, Berman J of the Supreme Court of Victoria was required to determine an application brought by the applicant, Macey, against the respondents, Liddell and another party. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that an Amended Application was filed by Macey.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Amended Application filed by Macey on 20 September 2018 should be granted. The Court was tasked with assessing the merits of this application and deciding whether to dismiss it.

Berman J dismissed the Amended Application. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text. The Court's final order was that the Amended Application filed on 20 September 2018 be dismissed, subject to the formal entry of the order in the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Amended Application filed 20 September 2018 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.