PAVONI & PAVONI - [2018] FCCA 3399

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAVONI & PAVONI

[2018] FCCA 3399

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting orders – best interests of children – orders made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65D, 65DAA

Cases cited:

Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Sampson v Hartnett [2015] FamCA 64

Morton and Berry [2014] FamCAFC 208

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Applicant:

MS PAVONI

Respondent:

MR PAVONI

File Number:

PAC 5601 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

26 October 2018

Date of Last Submission:

26 October 2018

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

23 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Rosic

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Rowlandson & Co Solicitors

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Mr Neville of Branston Neville

Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Ms Hayward of Legal Aid NSW Parramatta Family Law

ORDERS

The father’s Application in a Case filed 19 April 2018 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Pavoni & Pavoni is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 5601 of 2015

MS PAVONI

Applicant

And

MR PAVONI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and proposals

The following Reasons for Judgment relate to the interim hearing between Ms Pavoni born 1980 (“the mother”) and Mr Pavoni born 1981 (“the father”) in relation to the twin children [X] and [Y] born 2011 (“the children”).
The interim hearing pertained to the father’s Application in a Case filed 19 April 2018. In that application the father seeks fresh interim parenting Orders, there having been prior interim parenting Orders made by consent between the parties on 20 October 2017. Those past Orders provided for the children to spend supervised time with the father through Connecting Families. The father contended, inter alia, that there had been a significant change in circumstances since such past interim Orders of the Court; he contended that the need for the children to spend supervised time with the father no longer applied, by reason, inter alia, of the father’s past positive and uneventful supervised time spent with the children.
The mother contended that there had been no significant change in circumstances since the Court’s interim consent Orders made 20 October 2017 such that, pursuant to the rule in Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 (“Rice & Asplund”), the father should be prohibited from seeking fresh parenting Orders in relation to the children.

Material relied upon

The mother relied upon the following documents:
a)Amended Initiating Application filed 8 May 2017;
b)Response to an Application in a Case filed 21 May 2018;
c)Affidavit of Ms Pavoni filed 21 May 2018;
d)Case outline for the Respondent in Application in a Case.
The father relied upon the following documents:
a)Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 22 March 2017;
b)Application in a Case filed 19…

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 PAVONI & PAVONI

Details

AGLC: PAVONI & PAVONI [2018] FCCA 3399
Case: [2018] FCCA 3399
Decision Date: 23 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Pavoni & Pavoni*, Newbrun J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the father concerning parenting orders. The dispute centred on the father's application filed on 19 April 2018, the details of which are not further elaborated in the provided text.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the father's application should be dismissed. This determination would have involved an assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975*, including sections concerning parental responsibility, the best interests of the child, and the circumstances under which parenting orders can be made or varied.

Newbrun J ultimately dismissed the father's application. While the specific reasoning for this dismissal is not detailed, the outcome indicates that the application did not meet the necessary legal threshold or evidentiary requirements to proceed. The court's decision reflects the application of the principles and provisions contained within the *Family Law Act 1975* to the facts presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

The father’s Application in a Case filed 19 April 2018 be dismissed.

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.