Redmond and Redmond - [2014] FamCA 309

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REDMOND & REDMOND

[2014] FamCA 309

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – Best Interests – Risk – The time the child is to spend with the father – Supervised time – Where the child is at an unacceptable risk of physical or psychological harm in the unsupervised care of the father – Parental responsibility in relation to education - The child’s schooling – School authorised to provide the father with reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained from the school
FAMILY LAW – Injunction – Where the father has published material on the internet identifying the child and the parenting matters – Where the father has published material on the internet about the child’s school – Where the father is required to remove websites containing articles about the child’s school and the parenting matter between the parties.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 121

Xuarez & Vitela [2012] FamCA 574
Sitwell & Sitwell [2014] FamCAFC 5

APPLICANT:

Mr Redmond

RESPONDENT:

Ms Redmond

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Patrick Dooley

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

4493

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

15 May 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Forrest J

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Redmond in Person

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Redmond in Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Dooley
Dooley Solicitors

Orders

The father shall forthwith take all steps that are necessary to remove or cause to be removed all material published by him or caused or permitted to be published by him on any of the following internet websites that relate to the mother, the child E, X School or any of that school’s past, present or future directors, employees or agents:
(i)URL omitted
(ii)URL omitted
(iii)URL omitted
(iv)URL omitted
(v)URL omitted
(vi)URL omitted
(vii)URL omitted
(viii)
The father shall forthwith take all steps and do all acts and things necessary to ensure that internet service providers remove all content (including cached content) referred to in Order (1) above.
The father is restrained from publishing, causing or permitting to be published on any internet website any information, comment or remarks about the mother, the child E, X School or any of that school’s past, present or future directors, employees or agents.
All previous orders of this Court or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for the child, E, born … 2005 to spend time with the father are hereby discharged.
Commencing forthwith, until further order, the child E shall spend time with the father for up to two hours each weekend with such time to be supervised at the N Contact Centre or the C Contact Centre, whichever of those centres, individually or in combination, can accommodate this family in accordance with these Orders, such that the child’s supervised time with the father may commence as soon as possible and be able to occur each weekend.
The mother and the father shall share equally the costs charged by the children’s contact centre or centres for using the services…

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 Redmond and Redmond

Details

AGLC: Redmond and Redmond [2014] FamCA 309
Case: [2014] FamCA 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved Mr. Redmond (the applicant father) and Ms. Redmond (the respondent mother) concerning parenting orders for their child, E. The dispute also encompassed the father's publication of material online concerning the child, the parenting proceedings, and the child's school, X School. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia by Forrest J.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the appropriate interim parenting arrangements for the child, E, given concerns about the father's conduct and mental state. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the child was at an unacceptable risk of physical or psychological harm in the father's unsupervised care. Additionally, the court needed to address the father's breaches of a deed of settlement concerning his online publications about the school and the parenting dispute, and whether injunctive relief was necessary to restrain further publication. The court also considered the father's parental responsibility in relation to the child's education and the provision of school-related information.

Forrest J reasoned that the father's conduct, including his persistent online publications in breach of a deed of settlement and court orders, demonstrated a significant disregard for the court's authority and the welfare of the child. The court found that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in unsupervised care, citing evidence from the Independent Children's Lawyer's affidavit, which detailed concerning behaviour by the father towards his former partner and the child. Consequently, the court discharged all previous orders for the child to spend time with the father and ordered that any future time be supervised for up to two hours each weekend at a designated contact centre. The court also restrained the father from publishing any further material online about the mother, the child, or the school, and ordered him to remove all existing offending content.

The court made several orders by consent, including that the mother continue to provide the father with copies of the child's school reports, photographs, certificates, and awards. The court also ordered that the Independent Children's Lawyer inform X School in writing of specific aspects of the judgment. All other interim applications for parenting orders were dismissed. The court noted that the publication of the judgment under the pseudonym Redmond & Redmond was approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Orders