Patterson & Dillard - [2022] FedCFamC2F 465

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Patterson & Dillard [2022] FedCFamC2F 465

File number(s): BRC 14147 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 14 April 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – children – parenting – interstate relocation of children by mother – where father seeks return of children to Queensland – allegations of family violence rejected – equal shared parental responsibility - children settled in Tasmania – father able to have significant and substantial time with children facilitated by funds undertaken to be paid for that purpose by maternal family

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995(Cth) s140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss4AB, 60B(1), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 60DA, 61B, 65DAA(3), 65DAC

Cases cited:
A & A: Relocation Approach (2000) FLC 93-035

Aldridge & Keaton (2009) FLC 93-421

B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) FLC ¶92-755

Belfort & Sedita [2021] FCCA 558

Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21

Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWR 705

Dieter & Dieter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA1346

H v W (1995) FLC ¶92-598

Hepburn & Noble [2010] FamCAFC 111

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343

MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4

Re Andrew (1996) 20 Fam LR 538

Russell v Close (Unreported, Family Court of Australia, 25 June 1993)

Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1

Sampson & Hartnett (No 10) [2007] FamCA 1365

Star & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115

Stringer & Nissen (No 2) [2019] FLC 93-922

Taylor & Barker [2007] FamCA 1246

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 255

Date of hearing: 17 – 19 January 2022

Place: Hobart

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Taylor

Solicitor for the Applicant: BGM Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K Mooney SC

Solicitor for the Respondent: Delaney & Delaney
ORDERS

BRC 14147 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PATTERSON

Applicant

AND:
MS DILLARD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

14 APRIL 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous orders are discharged.

Parental Responsibility
2.The Applicant Father, MR PATTERSON (“the Father”), and the Respondent Mother, MS DILLARD (“the Mother”) (collectively “the parents”) have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues with respect to the children, X born in 2017 and Y born in 2019 (collectively “the children”) including but not limited to:
(a)the children’s education (both current and future);
(b)the children’s religion and cultural upbringing;
(c)the children’s health;
(d)the children’s names; and
(e)changes to the children’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the children to spend time with a parent.

3.The Mother and the Father shall consult with each other about decisions to be made in the exercise of their equal shared parental responsibility, as follows:
(a)they shall inform the other parent about the decision to be made;
(b)they shall consult with each other on terms that they agree; and
(c)they shall make a genuine effort to come to…

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 Patterson & Dillard

Details

AGLC: Patterson & Dillard [2022] FedCFamC2F 465
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 465
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter was parenting proceedings between Mr Patterson, the father, and Ms Dillard, the mother, relating to two children, X born in 2017 and Y born in 2019 (collectively "the children"). The parties and the children all resided in Queensland until the mother moved with the children to Tasmania in mid-2020. The father filed an Initiating Application on 9 October 2020, seeking final parenting orders and urgent interim orders for the return of the children to Queensland. The children did not return, and instead interim orders were made by consent, which provided for the father to spend time with the children in Tasmania and Queensland. The primary issues in dispute were: (a) whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility or if should be joint; (b) whether the mother should be required to return the children to Queensland; and (c) what time the father should spend with the children and where. The Court rejected the allegations of family violence against the father. The Court found that the children were settled, in routines, progressing normally developmentally and are content. It was not in the children's best interests to return to Queensland. The Court made orders for the children to live with the mother in Tasmania, and for the father to spend significant and substantial time with the children. The mother was also ordered to consult with the father about decisions to be made in the exercise of their equal shared parental responsibility. The father was ordered to make decisions for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when the children are spending time with him.

Orders