FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the father appeals against interim parenting orders and the trial judge’s subsequent refusal to grant a stay of those interim orders pending appeal – Where the final trial is due to commence some 12 weeks after the hearing of these appeals – Where the father has lodged eight appeals in this Court in the past two years and final trial dates have been lost as a result – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the appeals – Where no merit in the appeals – Where orders were made following oral argument and reasons for judgment were delivered subsequently so as to preserve the final trial dates – Appeals dismissed and no order as to costs.
To the extent that leave is required to appeal against orders 1 and 10 dated 15 May 2014, leave is refused.
There be no order as to costs.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Redmond & Redmond has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE
Appeal Number: NA 26 of 2014; NA 29 of 2014 File Number: BRC 4493 of 2011
Mr Redmond
Appellant
And
Ms Redmond
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Redmond (“the father”) and Ms Redmond (“the mother”) have been engaged in parenting proceedings pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) concerning their child E born in 2006, since such proceedings were commenced in the then Federal Magistrates Court in 2011, and subsequently transferred to this Court.
The parenting proceedings have been listed by Forrest J for a final trial before his Honour for three days commencing on 31 October 2014.
Given the imminence of the final trial, at the outset of the hearing of these appeals by the father against interim orders made by Forrest J on 15 May 2014, and against his Honour’s subsequent refusal on…
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 & Redmond
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Redmond & Redmond [2014] FamCAFC 155
Case
[2014] FamCAFC 155
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered two appeals by Mr Redmond against interim parenting orders made by Forrest J on 15 May 2014 and against his Honour’s subsequent refusal on 11 June 2014 to grant a stay of those orders pending appeal. The father sought to appeal against the interim orders made by the trial judge on the basis that they were not in the best interests of the child, were not supported by the evidence, were incapable of being followed, and were not adequately reasoned. The father also sought to appeal against the trial judge’s refusal to grant a stay of those orders pending appeal. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the father’s appeals and sought to preserve, as far as possible, the final trial dates. The Full Court found that there was no merit in the father’s appeals and dismissed them. The Court made orders on the day of hearing dismissing the appeals and advised the parties its reasons for judgment would be delivered subsequently. The Full Court found that the father’s appeals were without merit and dismissed them. The Court made orders on the day of hearing dismissing the appeals and advised the parties its reasons for judgment would be delivered subsequently. The Court found that the father’s appeals were without merit and dismissed them. The Court made orders on the day of hearing dismissing the appeals and advised the parties its reasons for judgment would be delivered subsequently. The Court found that the father’s appeals were without merit and dismissed them. The Court made orders on the day of hearing dismissing the appeals and advised the parties its reasons for judgment would be delivered subsequently. Given the father’s bankrupt status, the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought no order as to costs in the event of the appeals being dismissed and thus the Court made no order as to costs.