FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ORAM & LAMBERT AND ORS | [2019] FamCAFC 4 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Procedural fairness – Interventions by the primary judge – Bias and prejudgment – Challenges to findings of fact – Whether the primary judge erred in her assessment of the risk posed to the children by the parties – Whether the primary judge ignored evidence of family violence – Adequacy of reasons – Whether the primary judge erred by treating the first respondent, who is not the biological father of one of the children, as a “parent” for the purposes of s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Views of the children – Whether the primary judge erred in imposing an order for indefinite supervised time – No appealable error demonstrated – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs. FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the appellant seeks to adduce a number of documents which were available at the time of the hearing before the primary judge – Where the appellant seeks to adduce a character reference and documents relating to her health and education – Where the documents are inadmissible, irrelevant or seek to demonstrate changed circumstances – Application dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 93A(2) |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Oram |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Mr Lambert |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Ms McCreadie |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Emalene Gemmell Solicitor |
| FILE NUMBER: | NCC | 2354 | of | 2016 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 67 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 24 January 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Ainslie-Wallace, Aldridge & Watts JJ |
| HEARING DATE: |
Continue reading Oram & Lambert
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Oram & Lambert [2019] FamCAFC 4
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues encompassed whether the primary judge exhibited bias or prejudgment in her assessment of the risk posed to the children by the parties, particularly in relation to the evidence of family violence. Additionally, the court examined whether the primary judge erred in her findings of fact and whether she correctly treated the first respondent, who is not the biological father of one of the children, as a "parent" under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975. The adequacy of the reasons provided by the primary judge and the imposition of an order for indefinite supervised time were also scrutinized.
The court found no merit in the claims of bias or prejudgment, concluding that the primary judge had appropriately weighed the evidence, including the allegations of family violence. The court also held that the primary judge's treatment of the first respondent as a parent and the imposition of the supervised time order were not erroneous. The reasons provided by the primary judge were deemed sufficient, and the appeal was dismissed. The application to adduce further evidence was rejected as the documents sought to be introduced were inadmissible, irrelevant, or related to changed circumstances.
The final orders of the court included dismissing the appeal, denying leave to file an application to adduce further evidence, and dismissing the applications for costs by the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appellant have leave to file in court an Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence.
2.
The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
3.
The appeal is dismissed.
4.
The applications of the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer for costs are dismissed.
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.