Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Pachris & Tajir (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 1296

File number: PAC 3726 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE MURDOCH

Date of judgment: 28 September 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Serious allegations of family violence – Risk – Visual recording tendered during the course of the final hearing where the Court finds that the father perpetrated a sexual assault upon the mother during such recording – Where the father has perpetrated serious family violence including coercive and controlling behaviour – Where the parties had a toxic and dysregulated relationship – Where the risks to the children in spending time with the father are unacceptable and cannot be ameliorated – Injunctive orders made – Orders made for the children to live with the mother and spend no time with the father – Submissions invited as to the father being referred to the New South Wales Police Commissioner for investigation and possible prosecution.

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 65D, 65DAA, 68B, 68C

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child art 19

Cases cited:
A v A (1998) FLC 92-800

Adamson & Adamson (2014) FLC 93-622; [2014] FamCAFC 232

Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268; [2009] FamCAFC 196

B v B (1993) FLC 92-357

B & K [2001] FamCA 880

Blanch & Blanch & Crawford (1999) FLC 92-837; [1998] FamCA 1908

Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146

Dieter& Dieter [2007] FamCA 608

Helbig & Rowe [2016] FamCAFC 117

Illgen &Yike [2018] FamCA 17

Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Keane & Keane (2021) 62 Fam LR 190

Keating & Keating (2019) FLC 93-894; [2019] FamCAFC 46

Kuhlv Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11

M & M (1988) FLC 91-979; [1988] HCA 68

Marvel & Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348; [2010] FamCAFC 101

Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518; [2007] FamCA 520

McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405; [2009] FamCAFC 92

R & C [1993] FamCA 62

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48

Zuen and Lhao [2020] FamCAFC 84

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 282

Date of hearing: 24, 25, 26, 27 May 2022

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Givney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Apex Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Lioumis

Solicitor for the Respondent: Santo Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Conte-Mills

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Harb Lawyers
ORDERS

PAC 3726 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PACHRIS

Applicant

AND:
MS TAJIR

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE MURDOCH

DATE OF ORDER:

28 September 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for X born in 2015 and Y born in 2017 (“the children”).
2.The children live with the Mother.
3.The children spend…

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 Pachris & Tajir (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Pachris & Tajir (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 1296
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Pachris & Tajir (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made orders regarding the allocation of parental responsibility and time arrangements for two children, X and Y, born in 2015 and 2017, respectively. The mother alleged that the father had perpetrated serious family violence, including sexual, physical, and verbal assaults. The father denied these allegations and claimed that the mother fabricated them to prevent him from spending time with the children. The court found that the father had indeed perpetrated a sexual assault on the mother during a recorded encounter, and that there were multiple instances of physical abuse and coercive and controlling behavior. The court determined that the relationship between the parties was highly toxic and dysfunctional, making joint parental responsibility unfeasible. The court further found that the children would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if they were to spend time with the father, and that this risk could not be ameliorated in any way. Therefore, the court made orders granting sole parental responsibility to the mother, with no time arrangements for the children to spend with the father. The court also made injunctive orders restraining the father from approaching or contacting the mother or children, and orders for the children to be placed on the Airport Watchlist. The court further found that it was in the children's best interests that they not come into contact with the mother's brothers, who had extensive criminal histories.

Orders