Patrick & Patrick (No 2) - [2024] FedCFamC2F 528

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Patrick & Patrick (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 528

File number(s): BRC 6937 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 30 April 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – application for review – review of Senior Judicial Registrar’s decision – interim parenting orders allowing for unsupervised time with the father – father’s admitted history of alcohol abuse and some family violence and breaches of domestic violence orders – alleged unacceptable risk requiring ongoing supervised time only pending final hearing – no unacceptable risk found – application for review largely dismissed – additional interim order providing that father’s time suspended until satisfactory CDT result

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Deiter & Deiter [2011] FAMCAFC 82

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Keane & Keane (2021) 62 Fam LR 62

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 38

Date of hearing: 17 April 2024

Place: Hobart

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Alexander

Solicitor for the Applicant: Hey Family Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Trout

Solicitor for the Respondent: Browns Lawyers
ORDERS

BRC 6937 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PATRICK

Applicant

AND:
MS PATRICK

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, should the Father fail to comply with monthly CDT testing according to Order 8(c) of the Court’s Orders of 19 March 2024, his time pursuant to Order 2 of those Orders is suspended until he satisfies the conditions of Order 8(c) and Order 9.
2.The application for review filed by the Mother on 26 March 2024 is otherwise 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).
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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE TAGLIERI

This judgment concerns interim parenting orders that come for determination pursuant to an application for review by Ms Patrick (“the mother”) filed 26 March 2024. The respondent to the application for review is Mr Patrick (“the father”).
In effect, by her application the mother seeks to discharge a number of interim parenting Orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar on 19 March 2024. Those Orders provided for…

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 Patrick & Patrick (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Patrick & Patrick (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 528
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 528
Decision Date: 30 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patrick & Patrick (No 2) involved an application for review brought by the mother against the father's interim parenting orders. The dispute centred on the father's admitted history of alcohol abuse, some incidents of family violence, and breaches of domestic violence orders. The mother sought to restrict the father's unsupervised time with their children to supervised visits only, citing an unacceptable risk to the children if such restrictions were not imposed. The matter was heard by Judge Taglieri in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the father's past behaviour and breaches of domestic violence orders constituted an unacceptable risk to the children, warranting ongoing supervised visits only. The mother argued that the risk was unacceptable and required such measures to protect the children, while the father contended that the risk was not significant enough to justify such restrictions. The court needed to determine the appropriate level of risk management for the father's time with the children.

Judge Taglieri examined the evidence presented by both parties and found that there was no unacceptable risk to the children if the father's time was unsupervised. The court considered the father's history of alcohol abuse and breaches of domestic violence orders but concluded that these factors did not necessarily indicate an ongoing unacceptable risk. The court acknowledged the father's efforts to address his alcohol abuse and comply with court-ordered conditions. However, the court did impose a condition that the father's time with the children would be suspended until he satisfactorily completed a court-ordered drug and alcohol test, reflecting the court's concern over the father's past behaviour. The application for review was largely dismissed, with the court making a specific order regarding the father's time being contingent upon his compliance with the testing requirements.

In summary, the court dismissed the mother's application for review of the interim parenting orders, finding no unacceptable risk to the children from unsupervised visits. However, the court imposed a condition that the father's time with the children would be suspended until he satisfactorily completed a drug and alcohol test. This order reflects the court's concern over the father's past issues while still allowing for unsupervised time, provided that the father adheres to the conditions set by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 6937 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR PATRICK

Applicant

AND:

MS PATRICK

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, should the Father fail to comply with monthly CDT testing according to Order 8(c) of the Court’s Orders of 19 March 2024, his time pursuant to Order 2 of those Orders is suspended until he satisfies the conditions of Order 8(c) and Order 9.

2. The application for review filed by the Mother on 26 March 2024 is otherwise 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).

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.

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.

File number(s):	BRC 6937 of 2023
Judgment of:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
Date of judgment:	30 April 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – application for review – review of Senior Judicial Registrar’s decision – interim parenting orders allowing for unsupervised time with the father – father’s admitted history of alcohol abuse and some family violence and breaches of domestic violence orders – alleged unacceptable risk requiring ongoing supervised time only pending final hearing – no unacceptable risk found – application for review largely dismissed – additional interim order providing that father’s time suspended until satisfactory CDT result
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Deiter & Deiter [2011] FAMCAFC 82 Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 Keane & Keane (2021) 62 Fam LR 62 Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	38
Date of hearing:	17 April 2024
Place:	Hobart
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Alexander
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Hey Family Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Trout
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Browns Lawyers

BRC 6937 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR PATRICK Applicant
AND:	MS PATRICK Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:	30 APRIL 2024