MACGOWN & KOOPMAN - [2019] FCCA 3387

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MACGOWN & KOOPMAN

[2019] FCCA 3387

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – best interests of child – orders made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCA 240
Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Applicant:

MR MACGOWAN

Respondent:

MS KOOPMAN

File Number:

PAC 2494 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

1 November 2019

Date of Last Submission:

1 November 2019

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

9 December 2019

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms El-Ayoubi

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Ms Rutkowska

ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

That the mother and father forthwith contact Town A Children’s Contact Service (Relationship’s Australia) to arrange initial intake assessments for Group Supervised Contact (ph: …)
That the child, [X] born on … 2015, spend time with the father under the supervision of Town A Children’s Contact Service (Relationship’s Australia) as part of their Group Supervised Contact service at times as nominated by Town A Children’s Contact Service.
That for the purposes of order 2 herein:
(a)The mother and father shall comply with any appointments made by the service for supervised time;
(b)The father is responsible for payment of fees for supervised time as assessed by Town A Children’s Contact Service (and it is noted that the fees are assessed according to a sliding scale) and the mother shall contribute up to $10 per visit;
(c)The mother and father follow all reasonable requests and directions of Town A Children’s Contact Service.
That until such time as a placement for Group Supervised Contact becomes available at Town A Children’s Contact Service, that the child [X] shall continue to spend supervised time with the father at Area B Contact Service in accordance with order 2 of consent orders made on 6 December 2018 and in accordance with the current arrangements and schedule.
That the father forthwith attend upon his G.P. to obtain a Mental Health Assessment Care Plan, and if a Care Plan is made, then the father shall consult a psychologist as recommended by his G.P. for treatment regarding his mental health.
That the father attend upon his psychiatrist Dr C, as required and at such frequency as recommended by Dr C, and continue to attend upon Dr C (or such other mental health practitioner for a period as deemed necessary by them.
That the father comply with all reasonable directions and recommendations of Dr C and any psychologist upon whom he attends about his mental health treatment, and such treatment may involve therapeutic intervention counselling, courses and prescribed medication.
Direct the ICL to take all reasonable steps to have Dr D expedite the preparation of her expert report.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym MacGowan & Koopman is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

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 MACGOWN & KOOPMAN

Details

AGLC: MACGOWN & KOOPMAN [2019] FCCA 3387
Case: [2019] FCCA 3387
Decision Date: 9 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *MacGown & Koopman*, Newbrun J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application for interim parenting orders. The dispute concerned the arrangements for a child, with the court tasked with determining what orders were in the best interests of the child on an interim basis.

The central legal issue before the court was the paramount consideration of the child's best interests in the context of interim parenting arrangements. This required the court to assess the competing claims of the parties and to make a determination that would safeguard the child's welfare pending a final hearing.

Newbrun J applied the principles enshrined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 60CC, which outlines the factors to be considered when determining a child's best interests. The court weighed various considerations, including the child's relationship with each parent, the child's physical, psychological, and emotional wellbeing, and the capacity of each parent to provide for the child's needs. The court's reasoning focused on establishing a stable and safe environment for the child during the interim period, prioritising the child's need for safety and continuity.

The court made interim orders regarding the child's living arrangements and the time each parent would spend with the child, with the specific details of these orders being tailored to the circumstances of the case as presented to the court.

Orders