Nayar & Groth

[2023] FedCFamC1F 266

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Nayar & Groth [2023] FedCFamC1F 266

File number:

CAC 1702 of 2021

Judgment of:

GILL J

Date of judgment:

14 April 2023

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Where mother seeks recommencement of professionally supervised time between the father and the child in substitution for current non-professional supervision regime – Where the father has never spent unsupervised time with the child – Where the mother alleges risk of harm to the child both from the father and from the mother’s response to the risks she perceives, including through exposure to investigating 2 agencies – Consideration of the risk of father spending time with the child balanced with the importance of a meaningful relationship between them – Application dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 65DAA

Cases cited:

Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100

SS v AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

Division:

Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs:

78

Date of hearing:

6 April 2023

Place:

Canberra

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Harper

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Farrar Gesini Dunn

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Stagg

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Parker Coles Curtis

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Ms Mussato, Legal Aid ACT

ORDERS

CAC 1702 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS GROTH

Applicant

AND:

MR NAYAR

Respondent

order made by:	GILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 APRIL 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application in a Proceeding filed on 21 March 2023 is dismissed.

2.Order 7 (make-up time) of the Orders made by Judge Hughes on 22 December 2022 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (“Judge Hughes’ Orders”) is discharged in respect of the respondent father’s make-up time to the date of this judgment.

3.The respondent father’s visits with X recommence on 18 April 2023, as per Judge Hughes’ Orders, and transition to Order 3(c) of Judge Hughes’ Orders after four further four hour visits have occurred.  

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nayar & Groth has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GILL J:

INTRODUCTION

1. The…