Meadis & Meadis - [2022] FedCFamC1F 62

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Meadis & Meadis [2022] FedCFamC1F 62

File number(s): MLC 11834 of 2016

Judgment of: BENNETT J

Date of judgment: 24 January 2022

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – first day of trial – where the father who has been convicted of assaulting the mother after pleading guilty and having served his period of incarceration gives a contradictory explanation of the assault – where father now alleges that the mother staged the assault, that he was innocent and that it is in the best interests of the children that they live with him.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where family report writer is not to require children to meet the paternal family members for the purpose of the family report assessment without further order of the court.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where father seeks domestic violence/intervention order against the mother in state court based on his allegations that the mother has been financially abusive of him – where it is in order for parties to the proceedings in the state courts to rely of orders and reasons for decision from these proceedings – where court will facilitate delivery of documents to the state court for that purpose.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975(Cth)

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 18

Date of hearing: 24 January 2022

Place: Melbourne (heard via MS Teams)

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Nicholson

Solicitor for the Respondents: Harris Lieberman Solicitors Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr G Meadis in person

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Meadis in person

Counsel for the Third Respondent: Ms H Meadis in person

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr McLeod

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Joliman Lawyers
ORDERS

MLC 11834 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
Mr Meadis

Applicant

AND:
Ms Meadis

First Respondent

Mr G Meadis

Second Respondent

Ms H Meadis

Third Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 JANUARY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The requirements of s 102NA (2) of the Family Law Act 1975 will apply to this proceedings.
2.The mother and the father make application to Victoria Legal Aid for funding pursuant to s 102NA (2) for the final hearing of this matter which is due to commence on 20 September 2022.
3.Liberty be reserved to the paternal grandparents, of either of them, to make application for funding pursuant to s 102NA (2) for the final hearing of this matter or as they may be advised AND IT IS NOTED that Victoria Legal Aid require not less than six weeks to consider any such application.
4.That the literature published by the Court, being Document 4 (Family Violence Information Sheet) and Document 5 (Family Violence – Personal Cross-examination Ban) be annexed to this Order.
5.That this matter be fixed for final hearing before me on 20 September 2022 estimated to take 5 to 8 days (“the…

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 Meadis & Meadis

Details

AGLC: Meadis & Meadis [2022] FedCFamC1F 62
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed a complex parenting dispute in the case of Meadis & Meadis. The matter involved Mr. Meadis, who had recently been released from prison after serving time for assaulting the mother, Ms. Meadis. Despite his conviction, Mr. Meadis claimed that the assault was staged by Ms. Meadis, and he sought primary care of their three children, X, Y, and Z. The paternal grandparents also sought parenting orders, raising additional layers of complexity to the case. The court was required to determine several key issues, including whether the family report writer could observe the children with the paternal family members and if the parties could rely on the records of decisions and orders from the family law proceedings in the state court.

The court concluded that the family report writer should not observe the children with the paternal family members without further order. This decision was made to avoid placing the sole responsibility for such observations on the family report writer, who could be distracted by justifying their decisions to the parties during the assessment process. The court also reserved liberty to the parties to apply urgently for such observations after the family report was released, to ensure that the final hearing could proceed without delay. Additionally, the court confirmed that the parties could rely on the records of decisions and orders from the family law proceedings in the state court, directing that accurate copies of relevant documents be sent to the relevant state court to ensure clarity and legitimacy in the use of these materials.

The outcome of the court's decision was to direct the parties to prepare for a final hearing scheduled for 20 September 2022, which would be conducted electronically unless a face-to-face trial was necessary. The court also mandated the preparation of a comprehensive family report, outlining specific areas of assessment and the involvement of the children’s current partners in the report. These measures were intended to facilitate a thorough evaluation of the children's best interests and to ensure that all relevant factors were considered in the final determination of parenting arrangements.

Orders