Pascoe & O'Keefe and Ors

Pascoe & O'Keefe and Ors involved an appeal in family law concerning the custody and visitation rights of a child. The mother appealed against the trial judge's orders that the child live with the father but spend time with her under specific conditions due to concerns about the second respondent’s history of violence. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother’s appeal. The second respondent attended the appeal but did not participate. The mother argued that the trial judge could have ordered the child to live with her, excluding the second respondent permanently, but the court found that such findings were not reasonably open to the trial judge. The trial judge correctly assessed the risk of harm posed to the child and made orders promoting the child's best interests, considering the father should have sole parental responsibility. The trial judge gave sufficient reasons for the orders, which did not align with the single expert's recommendation, and there was no procedural unfairness.

The court examined the legal issues concerning the trial judge’s findings about the risk of harm posed by the second respondent and whether those findings were reasonably open. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in making orders that did not coincide with the expert's recommendation and whether the parties were deprived of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court looked at whether the trial judge correctly allocated parental responsibility and whether there was merit in any grounds of appeal. The court found no error in the trial judge's assessment and that the orders aligned with the child's best interests. Furthermore, the mother's application to adduce further evidence during the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of justification.

The first respondent’s application to adduce further evidence was dismissed as there was no justification for it. The appeal itself was dismissed, as the court found no merit in any grounds of appeal and that the trial judge's orders were correct. Consequently, the trial judge's decision to allocate sole parental responsibility to the father and to confine the duration of the child's visits with the mother was upheld. No orders were made concerning costs.