FAMILY LAW – final parenting orders – indefinite supervision – significant and sustained family violence during the relationship and after separation by the Father – evidence by way of recordings of verbal threats to harm and kill Mother in presence of child – corroborating evidence in Mother’s case by third party witness who was a stranger to the parties at the time – sustained and repeated threats made by Father to turn the child against the Mother – Father a witness of poor credit – child spending fortnightly supervised time with Father pursuant to interim orders – Court finds there to be no indication on the evidence that the unacceptable risk to child will abate in the future – where single expert witness recommends ongoing supervised time in the matter’s circumstances – consideration of authorities on indefinite supervision – Court finds the risk to the child when only having ‘identity’ time with Father to be worse than ongoing supervision –monthly indefinite supervision ordered.
18 November 2020, 8-10 December 2020, 17-18 June 2021
Place:
Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr Livingstone
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Ark Law Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr Longworth
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Gordon & Barry Lawyers Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:
Ms Shea
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:
Legal Aid NSW
ORDERS
PAC 4103 of 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR MANCARI
Applicant
AND:
MS PADOVA
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
JUDGE MORLEY
DATE OF ORDER:
22 November 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That all previous parenting orders…
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 Mancari & Padova
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Mancari & Padova [2022] FedCFamC2F 1593
Case
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1593
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case between Mr Mancari (the Father) and Ms Padova (the Mother) concerned final parenting orders regarding their son, X. The parents never married, and the Mother asserted that separation took place on a final basis on 22 August 2014. The Father, however, claimed that they separated in January 2015. The final hearing of this matter took place over five days in December 2020 and June 2021. The legal issues to be decided by the court were the best interests of the child, the risk of family violence, and the need for supervision during the time the child spends with the Father. The court found that the Father's conduct towards the Mother was threatening, abusive, and violent, and that the child was at risk of being exposed to the same unacceptable risks when spending time with the Father unsupervised. The court concluded that the permanent imposition of supervision upon the interaction between the child and his Father was warranted to protect the child from the unacceptable risks. The court made final orders that the child would live with the Mother, and that the Father would have supervised time with the child. The court also made orders restraining the Father from contacting the Mother and the child, and orders for the protection of the Mother and the child.