Payne & Payne

The appellant, the father, brought an appeal against orders made by the Family Court concerning parenting and property. The central issue in the appeal was the parenting arrangement for the children, where the orders provided that the children live with the mother and that she have sole parental responsibility. The father was also granted supervised visitation one weekend every four weeks, contingent on compliance with a medical treatment regime. The father's history of mental ill health and family violence raised concerns about the children's safety and wellbeing during his care. The father argued that there was bias against him by the expert and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, and that the trial judge discriminated against him due to his mental health issues. He also claimed that the orders were impractical.

The court dismissed the father’s appeal regarding the parenting orders that the children live with the mother and that she have sole parental responsibility. However, it allowed the appeal in part concerning the father’s visitation times. The court varied the parenting order to allow the father additional telephone contact with the children on Father's Day, their birthdays, and Christmas Day. The court also dismissed the father’s appeal against the property orders, which divided the net assets between the parties, with 62.5 per cent to the wife and 37.5 per cent to the husband. The father's arguments regarding the consideration of his gambling hobby, a criminal compensation payment, and Workers Compensation money received during the marriage were dismissed due to the absence of evidence before the trial judge.

The court ordered that the father's appeal against the property orders was dismissed. It also dismissed the father's appeal against the parenting orders concerning the children living with the mother and her sole parental responsibility. However, the court allowed the father's appeal in part concerning the visitation times. The parenting order was varied to allow the father additional telephone contact with the children on special occasions. The court also ordered that the father pay the reserve costs of the wife from the directions hearings and the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.