Meadows & Meadows (No. 3) - [2020] FamCAFC 124

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 3)

[2020] FamCAFC 124

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals from final parenting orders which provided for the father to have sole parental responsibility of the child and for the mother to have unsupervised time with the child – Whether the primary judge made errors of law – Adequate reasons – Where the findings made by the primary judge were open to his Honour – Weight challenges – Where the primary judge did not fail to take into account relevant matters – Appeal dismissed – Mother to pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the mother appeals from final property orders adjusting the parties’ property interests 55/45 per cent in favour of the father and dismissing the mother’s application for spousal maintenance – Whether the primary judge made errors of fact or law – Where the primary judge’s errors of fact were immaterial to the orders made – Where findings made by the primary judge were open on the evidence – Appeal dismissed.

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 54(1)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 65DAA, 75(2) and 117
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) s 11
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 6

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 2.05, 15.44

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 76
De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296; [1971] HCA 54
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Meadows & Meadows [2020] FamCA 12

APPELLANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

26 May 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney (via video and telephone link)

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ

HEARING DATE:

1 April 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

30 July 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FamCA 491

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

Litigant in person

THE RESPONDENT:

Litigant in person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Fermanis

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 16 March 2020 to adduce further evidence in Appeal no. EAA 77 of 2019 is dismissed.
The appeal against the orders of a judge of the Family Court of Australia made on 30 July 2019 is dismissed.
The appellant mother pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer fixed in the sum of $7,821 within 14 days of receipt by her of the cash component of the property orders made on 30 July 2019.

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 Meadows & Meadows (No. 3) has been approved by…

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 Meadows & Meadows (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: Meadows & Meadows (No. 3) [2020] FamCAFC 124
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 124
Decision Date: 26 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meadows & Meadows (No. 3) involved an appeal by the mother against final parenting and property orders made in the Family Court of Australia. The parenting orders provided for the father to have sole parental responsibility of the child, while the mother was granted unsupervised time with the child. The property orders adjusted the parties' property interests in favor of the father, dismissing the mother's application for spousal maintenance. The mother contested the parenting orders on the basis that the primary judge made errors of law and failed to adequately consider relevant factors. She also challenged the property orders, arguing that the primary judge erred in fact or law and did not properly assess her needs.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the primary judge made errors of law in making the parenting and property orders and whether the judge adequately considered relevant matters. The court also had to assess whether the primary judge's factual findings were open based on the evidence presented. In reviewing the appeal, the court examined the reasoning and findings of the primary judge, as well as the weight given to different pieces of evidence. The court found that the primary judge did not make errors of law and that his findings were open on the evidence. The court concluded that the primary judge appropriately considered relevant factors and that the orders made were in the best interests of the child.

The court dismissed the mother's appeal, holding that the primary judge did not err in law or fail to consider relevant matters. The court found that the findings made by the primary judge were open and that the weight challenges were unsuccessful. The appeal against the parenting and property orders was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to pay the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court's decision upheld the final orders made by the primary judge, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the best interests of the child in family law matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 16 March 2020 to adduce further evidence in Appeal no. EAA 77 of 2019 is dismissed.

The appeal against the orders of a judge of the Family Court of Australia made on 30 July 2019 is dismissed.

The appellant mother pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer fixed in the sum of $7,821 within 14 days of receipt by her of the cash component of the property orders made on 30 July 2019.

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.