FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Miles & Miles [2022] FedCFamC1F 360
File number(s): SYC 5669 of 2021 Judgment of: REES J Date of judgment: 23 May 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – REVIEW OF SENIOR JUDICIAL REGISTRAR’S DECISION – Application by the father to spend unsupervised time with the children – Discussion of ‘meaningful relationship’ – Where the children are able to maintain a relationship with their father that is important, significant and valuable even if the time they spend with him is reduced – Children to spend alternate weekends with the father subject to him not drinking before or while the children are in his care. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC Cases cited: Godfrey & Sanders (2007) 208 FLR 287
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 42 Date of hearing: 20 May 2022 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dickson QC Solicitor for the Applicant: Pickering Pendleton Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Wong Solicitor for the Respondent: Vizzone Ruggero Twigg Lawyers Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Samuel ORDERS
SYC 5669 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR MILES
Applicant
AND: MS MILES
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
REES J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 MAY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the children Y born in 2009, X born in 2011 and Z born in 2013 (“the children”) live with the mother.
2.That the father not consume any alcohol during any period when the children are in his care or for twelve hours before the children come into his care.
3.That the father attend random CDT testing and/or liver functioning testing upon the request of the Independent Children's Lawyer such testing to be undertaken within 48 hours of such request.
4.That the father or his legal representative shall provide a copy of the results of the tests referred to in Order 3 within 48 hours of the receipt of such test results by the father.
5.That the children spend time with the father during school terms each alternate weekend commencing on Friday 27 May 2022 from the end of school until the start of school on Monday or 9.00 am on Monday if the weekend is a long weekend and each Wednesday afternoon from after school until 7.30 pm when, unless otherwise agreed, the father shall return them to the mother’s residence.
6.That during school holidays, the children spend time with the father each weekend from 3.00 pm on Friday until 9.00 am on Monday and, unless otherwise agreed, the father shall collect the children from the mother’s home at the commencement of the time and return them at the end of the time.
7.That weekend time during school terms re-commence on the first weekend after the start of the school term.
8.That in the event that Fathers’ Day falls on a weekend when the children are not in the father’s care, they…
Continue reading Miles & Miles
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Miles & Miles [2022] FedCFamC1F 360
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC1F 360
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term “meaningful relationship” as it applied to the father's involvement with the children. This required the court to consider the legislative intent behind the phrase and how it could be applied in the context of the children's best interests. The court examined definitions of the word “meaningful” and considered previous case law, including the Full Court's decision in McCall & Clark, to understand how the term should be construed. The court also looked at the objects clause of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to guide its interpretation of the phrase in line with the statutory purpose.
The court held that a meaningful relationship, in the context of the children’s welfare, is one that is significant, valuable, and important to the child. It emphasised that the term is qualitative rather than quantitative, focusing on the quality of the relationship rather than the amount of time spent together. The court concluded that the father’s involvement with the children, as evidenced by the parties’ agreement to share parenting time equally, met the statutory requirements for a meaningful relationship. It further determined that the paternal grandmother's undertaking to refrain from derogatory comments was necessary to ensure that the children’s welfare was not adversely affected.
The court made orders that the paternal grandmother provide an undertaking to the mother not to make any derogatory comments about her in the presence or hearing of the children. This was to ensure that the children could maintain a positive relationship with their father without being influenced by negative comments from the grandmother. The court’s decision underscored the importance of interpreting legislative terms in a way that aligns with the statutory objects and the best interests of the children.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
The paternal grandmother, at the request of the mother, has given an undertaking not to denigrate the mother in the presence or hearing of the children.CONSIDERATION It is not in dispute that the children will benefit from a meaningful relationship with their father and it is evident, because the parents agreed that they should spend half of their time with him, that they have such a relationship. However, the question of what is meant by the term “meaningful relationship” was considered by the Full Court in the decision of McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405 where their Honours said, commencing at [109]:The Act does not contain a definition of “meaningful”, nor does it provide any specific criteria to assess how parents either have, or should have, a “meaningful involvement” in a child’s life. It does not give guidance to the interpretation of the phrase “meaningful relationship”. It is necessary we construe the language of the statute to determine whether the import of the legislation is clear without reference to extrinsic material. The Macquarie Dictionary defines the adjective “meaningful” as “full of meaning, significant. Significant is defined as “important; of consequence” The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “meaningful” as “Full of meaning or expression; significant …” “Significant” is defined as “Having or conveying a meaning; Expressive; suggesting or implying deeper or unstated meaning … important, notable; consequential ...”We turn first to the objects clause (s 60B(1) [of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)]). The purpose of an objects clause is “to indicate the intended purpose of the legislation” (Pearce, D C & Geddes, R S, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 6th ed, Lexis Nexis, Australia, 2006) The learned authors further note at 4.42… “objects clauses are used as an aid to the construction of words of legislation. Gleeson CJ referred to the legislative declarations of the objects of an Act as giving practical content to abstract terms such as ‘reasonable’, ‘justification’ and ‘satisfactory’ in Russo v Aiello (2003) 215 CLR 643 at 645”. Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) provides for a purposive construction of a statute. The phrase “meaningful relationship” in the context of s 60CC(3)(a) has, not surprisingly, been considered in a number of decisions since the introduction of the amending Act. In Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 Brown J, after setting out the definition of “meaningful” and “meaning”, said at paragraph 26: What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.