RAMZI & MOUSSA - [2021] FCCA 103

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAMZI & MOUSSA

[2021] FCCA 103

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim hearing – parenting – application for orders requiring mother to return to Melbourne from Sydney – mother unilaterally relocated child’s residence without prior notice to father – father has not spent time with child for 15 months – disputed contentions as to family violence – both parents of limited financial means – expedition of preparation of family report and final hearing – orders facilitating mother remaining in Sydney – orders made for supervised time between child and father.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4AB, 60B, 60CC, 67T, 67 U, 67V, 69ZW

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Mazorski & Albright (2008) 37 Fam LR 518
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
Morgan and Miles [2007] FamCA 1230
Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100
Sampson & Harnett(No 10) [2007] FamCA 1364
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

Applicant:

MR RAMZI

Respondent:

MS MOUSSA

File Number:

MLC 12613 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge M Neville

Hearing date:

19 January 2021

Date of Last Submission:

19 January 2021

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

27 January 2021

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr Qureshi of Starnet Legal Pty Ltd

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms O’Rourke of Legal Aid NSW

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Mr Holmes of Holmes Donnelly & Co Solicitors

THE COURT ORDERS, PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THAT:

The father’s Application in a Case filed on 16 March 2020 be dismissed.
The father’s Application in a Case filed on 21 November 2019 be dismissed.
Orders 2 – 4 inclusive of the orders made on 30 January 2019 are discharged.
The child, X born in 2017 (“the child”) shall live with the mother.
The child shall spend time with the father on up to two occasions in each calendar month and:
(a)Such time is to be supervised by either of B Contact Centre or C Contact Centre for Children with the father to pay the cost of the supervision; and
(b)The time shall be for two hours on each occasion on days and at times as may be agreed between the parents and failing agreement as nominated by the agency supervising time; and
(c)Such time shall occur at either of D Shopping Centre, Suburb D or E Shopping Centre, Suburb E as is agreed between the parents in writing; and
(d)Each parent shall do all acts and things necessary to commence and complete any intake assessment process required by either or both of B Contact Centre or C Contact Centre for Children.
(e)During any period of supervised time each parent shall do all things necessary to comply with any reasonable direction of the supervisor.
Changeover shall occur with the mother to deliver the child to the supervisor before the commencement of time and collecting him from the supervisor at the conclusion of time after the father has departed the location.
Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the parties…

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 RAMZI & MOUSSA

Details

AGLC: RAMZI & MOUSSA [2021] FCCA 103
Case: [2021] FCCA 103
Decision Date: 27 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an interim hearing in the Family Court of Australia regarding parenting orders. The parties, Ramzi and Moussa, were in dispute following the mother's unilateral relocation of the child's residence from Melbourne to Sydney without prior notice to the father. The father had not spent time with the child for approximately 15 months. Both parents were of limited financial means, and there were disputed contentions as to family violence.

The court was required to determine whether to make interim orders requiring the mother to return the child to Melbourne, or to make orders facilitating the mother remaining in Sydney. The court also needed to consider arrangements for the father to spend time with the child, given the prolonged period of no contact and the disputed allegations of family violence. Further, the court was asked to consider the expedition of the preparation of a family report and the final hearing.

Justice Neville considered the best interests of the child as paramount. While acknowledging the father's desire for the child to return to Melbourne, the court found that it was not in the child's best interests to disrupt the current living arrangements in Sydney at this interim stage, particularly given the potential for further conflict and the limited financial means of the parties to facilitate such a move. The court noted the importance of the child maintaining a relationship with both parents where safe to do so.

Consequently, the court made orders for supervised time between the child and the father, to be facilitated in Sydney. The court also ordered the expedition of the family report and the final hearing to resolve the parenting dispute expeditiously.

Orders