FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Family violence – Coercion and control – Physical violence– Sexual abuse – Humiliation – Threats – Harassment – Monitoring – Deprivation of liberty – Isolation – Social abuse – Economic and financial abuse – Cultural abuse – Spiritual abuse – Exposure to family violence – Arranged marriage – Fear – Unacceptable risk – Application that child spend no time with a parent –Impact on mother’s parenting capacity – Mitigation of risk – Orders made for sole parental responsibility – Injunctive orders – No time ordered
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR RAMZI
Applicant
AND:
MS MOUSSA
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
JUDGE BECKHOUSE
DATE OF ORDER:
4 NOVEMBER 2022
ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2017 (“the child”).
2.The child live with the Mother.
3.The child spend no time with the Father, nor communicate with the Father.
4.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:
(a)Coming within 100 metres of the place of residence of the Mother and child or any school, child care facility or educational institution attended by the child;
(b)Contacting the Mother in a manner inconsistent or contrary to these Orders; and
(c)Attempting to or allowing or encouraging any other person to find, locate or communicate with the Mother and/or the child including but not limited to their place of residence and any school, child care facility, educational institution attended by the child from time to time…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ramzi & Moussa [2022] FedCFamC2F 1473
Case
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1473
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerns the parenting arrangements for X born in 2017, who is currently five years old. X’s parents, Mr Ramzi (the father) and Ms Moussa (the mother), are in dispute about his future parenting arrangements. The father seeks that X spend time with him, with the hope of a shared care arrangement. The mother seeks that X spend no time with the father and live with her in Sydney. The mother also alleges that the father poses an unacceptable risk to X and that orders facilitating a relationship between X and the father would have a negative impact on her parenting capacity. The Court was asked to determine whether the mother should return to Melbourne with X, how parental responsibility for X should be exercised, whether the father does pose a risk of harm to X, and if X is to spend time with the father in Melbourne, how much time and should it take place under supervision. The Court found that the mother experienced coercive and controlling family violence at the hands of the father, and that there was an unacceptable risk that X would be physically and/or psychologically harmed from being exposed to family violence by the father or another person in the father’s household. The Court also found that the mother holds a rational and genuine belief that X is at risk in the care of the father. The Court concluded that no orders that it could make would mitigate against the risks posed by the father. The Court therefore ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for X, that X live with the mother in Sydney, and that X spend no time nor communicate with the father. The Court also made a range of injunctions for the personal protection of the mother and X, including that the father be restrained from coming within 100 metres of the mother and X’s residence, X’s school, or any child care facility or educational institution he may attend; contacting the mother; and attempting to or allowing or encouraging any other person to find or locate the mother and X.