FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MALAK & MAIRIE (NO. 2) | [2016] FamCAFC 120 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – where the appellant father appeals orders excluding the father from having parental responsibility for the children and prohibiting all communication between the father and the children – where the father is a convicted paedophile – where the trial judge found that the father posed an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the children – where the father asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to obtain the children’s views – where the father asserts that the findings of the trial judge were not open to his Honour on the evidence before him – where no error established – appeal dismissed – no order as to costs. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s4, s60CE, s69ZN(3), s60ZX(3) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 |
Miller v Harrington (2008) FLC 93-383
Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93-363
Walter & Walter [2016] FamCAFC 56
| APPELLANT: | Mr Malak |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Mairie |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Leanne Sinclair |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 2355 | of | 2010 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SOA | 57 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 6 July 2016 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Murphy, Kent & Austin JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 5 July 2016 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 21 July 2015 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2015] FamCA 563 |
REPRESENTATION
| FOR THE APPELLANT: | In Person (via telephone) |
| FOR THE RESPONDENT: | In Person |
| FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | No appearance |
Orders
That the appeal be dismissed.
No order as to costs.
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 Malak & Mairie 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).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
Appeal Number: SOA 57 of 2015
File Number: MLC 2355 of 2010
| Mr Malak |
Appellant
And
| Ms Mairie |
Respondent
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Murphy J
The appellant is the father of, relevantly, three children: a girl C, now aged 16, and twin boys, D and E, now aged 12. On 21 July 2015, Berman J made parenting orders, the relevant effect of which was to exclude the father from having parental responsibility for the children, and to preclude him from communicating with them by any means. From those orders the father appeals.
At the time the orders were made, the father was serving an 18 year prison sentence, with a non-parole period of 13 years, for a number of sexual offences. He will not be…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Malak and Mairie (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] FamCAFC 120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the statute in question. This involved examining the statutory language, the context in which the statute was enacted, and the implications of different interpretations for the respondents' rights and obligations. The court also needed to consider whether the lower court had applied the correct legal principles in reaching its decision.
The court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the statute and applied the appropriate legal principles. The court emphasised the importance of a purposive interpretation of the statute, which aligned with the statutory objectives and the broader legislative framework. The respondents' arguments, while thorough, did not persuade the court that the lower court's interpretation was incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the appeal be dismissed.
2.
No order as to costs.
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.