Perrides & Perrides - [2022] FedCFamC2F 869

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Perrides & Perrides [2022] FedCFamC2F 869

File number(s): ADC 345 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE BROWN

Date of judgment: 5 July 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – children – final hearing – limited issues- parents unable to agree logistical arrangements – parenting arrangements for two children aged 6 and 4 – best interests of the children – parties have a limited co-parenting relationship – mother is reluctant to increase fathers time – father seeks gradual increase – mother asserts family violence allegations

Legislation:
Evidence Act1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, ss 4, 4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61B, 61DA, 64B, 65C, 65D, 65DAA, 65DAC, 65DAE, 67ZBA, 102NA

Cases cited:
Astor & Astor [2007] FamCA 355

B v B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) 21 Fam LR 676

Bartel & Schmucker (No 3) [2012] FamCA 1094

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Eaby & Speelman (2015) FamCAFC 104

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

In the marriage of B & B (1993) FLC 92-357

In the Marriage of JG & BG (1994) 18 Fam LR 255

In the Marriageof Patsalou (1994) 18 Fam LR 426

Jurchenko & Foster (2014) 51 Fam LR 588

Kuebler & Kuebler (1978) FLC 90-434

Line & Line (1997) FLC 92-729

Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461

Russell & Russell and Anor [2009] FamCA 28

Slater & Light [2013] FamCAFC 4

Zahawi & Rayne [2016] FamCAFC 90

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 223

Date of last submission/s: 5 May 2022

Date of hearing: 2-4 May 2022

Place: Adelaide

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Betro

Solicitor for the Applicant: A K Reeves & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Ross

Solicitor for the Respondent: Adelaide Family Law
ORDERS

ADC 345 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PERRIDES

Applicant

AND:
MS PERRIDES

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BROWN

DATE OF ORDER:

5 JULY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous parenting orders are hereby discharged.
2.The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, X born in 2016 and Y born in 2017 (“the children”).
3.The children live with the mother.
4.The children spend time with the father hereby as follows:
(a)Commencing 10 June 2022
(i)In Week 1 and each alternate week thereafter:
A.From 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm on Tuesday; and
B.From the conclusion of school or 5:00pm if a non-school day on Friday until 10:00am Sunday.

(ii)In Week 2 and each alternate week thereafter:
A.From 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm on Tuesday; and
B.From 9:00am on Sunday until the commencement of school on Monday or 9:00 am if a non-school day NOTING THAT the mother is to collect Y from the B Primary School from the father at the commencement of school.

(b)Commencing June 2023
(i)In Week 1 and each alternate week thereafter:
A.From the conclusion of school (or…

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 Perrides & Perrides

Details

AGLC: Perrides & Perrides [2022] FedCFamC2F 869
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 869
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves final parenting arrangements for two children, X and Y, born in 2016 and 2017 respectively. The parents, Mr Perrides and Ms Perrides, have been unable to agree on logistical arrangements for parenting their children. The court was required to decide on the best interests of the children, considering factors such as the nature of the children's relationship with each parent, the capacity of the parties to provide for the children's emotional and educational needs, and the likely effects of change. The court also had to decide on issues such as the commencement time of time spending with the father, the pace at which the father's time with the children should increase, and the day in which handovers occur during the Christmas school holidays. The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged, the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, and the children spend time with the father on a specified schedule. The court also made orders regarding communication between the children and their parents, exposure to firearms, and interstate and overseas travel. The court emphasised the importance of the parties' co-parenting relationship and the need for them to work together for the best interests of their children.

Orders