Pachis & Turnbull (No 3)

Case [2024] FedCFamC1A 116

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Pachis & Turnbull (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1A 116

Appeal from: Pachis & Turnbull [2024] FedCFamC1F 420
Appeal number: NAA 170 of 2024
File number: BRC 15185 of 2022
Judgment of: CAMPTON J
Date of judgment: 11 July 2024
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Where the grounds of appeal do not clearly articulate any form of legal, factual, or discretionary error – Where the appeal was listed to afford the appellant procedural fairness and an opportunity to be heard as to why the Notice of Appeal should not be struck out – Where the grounds are incompetent – Where the appeal is summarily dismissed.  
Legislation:

Family Law Act1975 (Cth) s 65DAAA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 28, 32, 46
Cases cited:

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34

Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28

Nootkamp & Brulja [2023] FedCFamC1A 90

Pachis & Turnbull [2023] FedCFamC1A 110

Pachis & Turnbull (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 16
Number of paragraphs: 25
Date of hearing: 11 July 2024
Place: Sydney via Microsoft Teams
The Appellant: Litigant in person
The Respondent: Did not participate

ORDERS

NAA 170 of 2024
BRC 15185 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MS PACHIS

Appellant
AND:

MR TURNBULL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is summarily dismissed.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 pseudonyms Pachis & Turnbull has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CAMPTON J:

  1. By way of a Notice of Appeal filed 8 July 2024, Ms Pachis (“the appellant”) seeks leave to appeal and if successful, appeals from an order made on 26 June 2024 by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). That order dismissed her Initiating Application filed 23 September 2023 seeking to vary orders made 28 February 2023 regulating the parenting of two children of she and Mr Turnbull (“the respondent”), who were born in 2014 and…

Continue reading Pachis & Turnbull (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pachis & Turnbull (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1A 116
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1A 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Pachis & Turnbull (No 3) involved Ms Pachis, the appellant, and Mr Turnbull, the respondent, in a family law matter concerning the custody and access arrangements for their children. The dispute originated from orders made in February 2023 by a judge in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which granted Mr Turnbull sole parental responsibility and prohibited Ms Pachis from having any contact with the children. Ms Pachis filed an application to vary these orders on 23 September 2023, which was dismissed by a Division 2 judge on 10 January 2024. Subsequently, the appellant appealed the dismissal of this review application, but that appeal was dismissed on 21 February 2024. The matter was transferred to Division 1, and the current appeal challenges the order dismissing the application filed on 23 September 2023. The appeal was heard on 14 June 2024.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the grounds of appeal properly articulated any form of legal, factual, or discretionary error. The grounds of appeal listed by the appellant were largely incoherent and did not present clear legal or factual arguments, instead making numerous and unsubstantiated allegations against the judicial officers and other parties involved in the proceedings. The court had to determine whether these grounds were competent and whether the appeal should proceed to a substantive hearing.

The court found that the grounds of appeal were incompetent and did not articulate any legal, factual, or discretionary error. The appellant was given an opportunity to explain why the Notice of Appeal should not be struck out, but failed to provide any coherent argument. The court concluded that the appeal did not enjoy reasonable prospects of success and was devoid of merit. Consequently, the appeal was summarily dismissed.

In light of the above, the court issued an order dismissing the appeal. The appeal was found to be without merit, and no further orders were necessary. The case underscores the importance of articulating clear and competent grounds of appeal in family law matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 170 of 2024

BRC 15185 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS PACHIS

Appellant

AND:

MR TURNBULL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is summarily dismissed.

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).

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

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow, the appellant cannot demonstrate that the application for leave to appeal has any reasonable prospect of success. The appeal will be dismissed.BACKGROUND The parties separated in early 2015, prior to the birth of the second child. Parenting proceedings were commenced on 12 June 2018. In August 2020, after a two-day defended hearing, interlocutory orders were made providing for the children to live with the respondent and for them to spend time with the appellant for four nights each fortnight and for half of the school holidays. On 23 September 2022 final orders were made by a judge in the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) providing:(a)The respondent to have sole parental responsibility for the children and for the children to live with him;(b)For the children to spend time with the appellant on alternate weekends during the school terms and for half of the school holidays; and(c)Restraining the appellant by injunction from attending or contacting the children’s school or health professionals, and from taking the children to any health professionals unless it is a medical emergency. The appellant did not appeal from or challenge those orders. On 2 December 2022 the appellant withheld the children. The respondent commenced proceedings, again in Division 2, seeking orders for the children to be returned to him and to spend no time with the appellant. On 28 February 2023 orders were made providing for the respondent to have sole parental responsibility for the children, for the children to live with him, and to spend no time with and have no contact with the appellant. On 10 July 2023 the appellants appeal from those orders was dismissed, being “wholly devoid of merit” (Pachis & Turnbull [2023] FedCFamC1A 110). On 23 September 2023 the appellant filed an application in Division 2 to vary the orders made 28 February 2023, seven months after those orders were made and two months after the determination of the Appellate Division. The appellant appealed a procedural order made by a Division 2 judge on 10 January 2024, dismissing a review. An appeal from that determination was dismissed on 21 February 2024 (Pachis & Turnbull (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 16). The proceeding was transferred from Division 2 to Division 1 on 28 May 2024. The order of the primary judge dismissing the transferred application filed 23 December 2023 is the subject of challenge by way of this appeal. A transcript of the hearing before the primary judge on 14 June 2024 is available and was read during the hearing of the appeal, informing some of the complaints made by the appellant during oral submissions.THE APPEAL The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant on 8 July 2024 records the grounds of appeal as follows:1. Intentional tactics used to sabotage a fair trial.2. Criminal negligence.3. Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.4. Extortion involved by the use of children.5. Concealing for corruption and pedophilia.6. Verdict could not be sustained on evidence before the commonwealth.7. Manipulation surrounding the circumstances of the family. 8.Serial sex offenders and human child traffickers employed by the commonwealth to conceal for the previous judicial corruption.9.Deliberate appointments of federal employees to cause further duress.10.Commonwealth employee (Judicial Officer) stalking the families and making false baseless allegations.11.Cannibal pedophile syndicate operating out of agencies.12.Attempts to use fraudulent pedophile third parties to abuse processes.13.Concealment of financial abuse and financial crimes. 14.Sick psychological tactics used to abuse the biological mother, Judicial officer showed signs of being mentally impaired.15.Judge made threats to resign.16.Failure to arrest.17.Judge failed to adhere to the set list of arguments.18.Issues in dispute left unaddressed.19.Concerning behaviour by the Judicial officer (Mental Health).20.Failure to comply with previous appeal judicial officers instructions and adhere to the case management of the proceeding.21.Children abandoned/ forcefully removed by an child trafficking pedophile syndicate.22.Plagiarised judicial noes from a mentally ill, pedophile cannibal [sic], nagretta mafia judicial officer.23.Abandoned children in a cult to be drugged and disfigured.24.Refusal to assist children in need of protection from criminals and remove from repetitive rapes and abuse.25.Dismissed a child abduction proceeding to assist his “friends” and ignored all principles of natural justice.26.Conspiracy to cause extensive delays27.Previous request for the proceeding to be diverted out of Brisbane federal Court due to the corruption.28.Performance audit for professional conduct required.29.Children rapped and home invasions occurred while awaiting trial.30.Attacked the children’s biological mother as retaliation to continue abuse and assist the syndicate.31.Two million dollar extortion plot ignored and dismissed.32.Obstruction of Justice assisting pedophiles and corrupt public service members to evade liability.33.Illegitimate practices for private gain.34.In deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (among other relevant things)–(a)the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken;(b)the likely seriousness of the harm;(c)the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm;(d)the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm35.Conflict of interest involving government procurement.36.Improperly dismissing and continuing custody of children to pedophiles, who are controlled by former pedophile cannibal judicial officers and corrupt police.37.Organised crime had infiltrated the Brisbane federal Court and was responsible for human child trafficking and financial fraud.38.Encouraging pedophiles to continue to defraud the government while condoning social acceptance of pedophiles.39.Along with fraud, there have been soaring levels of participation in the syndicate – with children remaining with pedophiles for longer than expected.40.Investigation of the Judicial officer is necessary for improperly awarding child custody to a dangerous pedophile and dismissing a family law application.(As per the original)

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The reasons of the primary judge were prophetic:24I am satisfied that nothing I say in these Reasons will satisfy the [appellant]. I expect, not only that she will appeal my decision, but there is every likelihood I will now be accused of personal or judicial conduct of a similar nature that has been asserted about other judicial officers.CONCLUSION The appeal is summarily dismissed because it does not enjoy reasonable prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.