Reeves & Grinter

Case [2017] FamCAFC 19

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REEVES & GRINTER [2017] FamCAFC 19
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the father appeals against final parenting orders – Where the child has significant intellectual and behavioural issues – Where the grounds of appeal challenge the trial judge’s exercise of discretion and weight given to various factors – Where the single expert recommended a change of residence for the child to live with the father – Where the trial judge was entitled to consider the expert’s evidence against the entirety of the evidence – Where the findings of the trial judge were open to him – Where the father asserted that the trial judge failed to give proper consideration to the s 60CC considerations – Where the trial judge did not err in his consideration of the evidence as a whole – Where the trial judge did not err in his application of the evidence to the legislative considerations – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 117
Andrew & Delaine [2009] FamCAFC 182
D & P [2006] FamCA 170
Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 S.C. 34
Friscioni & Friscioni [2010] FamCAFC 108
Gaffney & Gaffney [2012] FamCAFC 140
Gelbvieh & Senepol [2007] FamCA 476
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
Hall and Hall (1979) FLC 90-713
Hannigan & Sorraw [2010] FamCAFC 257
Kennedy & Kennedy [2010] FamCAFC 195
Lindsay & Baker [2012] FamCAFC 189
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sproules (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Malak & Mairie [2010] FamCAFC 170
Muldoon & Carlyle (2012) FLC 93-513
Salvati & Donato [2010] FamCAFC 263
Valdez & Frazier [2016] FamCAFC 54
Yates & Yates [2012] FamCAFC 138
APPELLANT: Mr Reeves
RESPONDENT: Ms Grinter
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Osborne Legal
FILE NUMBER: SYC 6726 of 2013
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 189 of 2015
DATE DELIVERED: 17 February 2017
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace & Forrest JJ
HEARING DATE: 7 February 2017
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 25 November 2015
LOWER COURT MNC: [2015] FamCA 1037

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: In person
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Morley
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Legal Aid NSW Dubbo Family Law
COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Siggins
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Osborne Legal

Orders

  1. The appeal against the orders of Foster J made on 25 November 2015 be dismissed.

  2. The appellant father pay the respondent mother’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be fixed in the sum of $4,160.00, to be paid within forty‑two (42) days of these orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Reeves & Grinter has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s…

Continue reading Reeves & Grinter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Reeves & Grinter [2017] FamCAFC 19
Case
[2017] FamCAFC 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the father against a decision made by the Family Court of Australia, which had been upheld by the Full Court of the Family Court. The father sought to appeal the decision on the basis that the primary judge had erred in failing to find that the mother had engaged in family violence against the father and their children, and in failing to properly consider the father's allegations of family violence. The mother opposed the appeal, arguing that the primary judge's findings were correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court was required to consider whether the primary judge had erred in failing to find that the mother had engaged in family violence against the father and their children, and whether the primary judge had failed to properly consider the father's allegations of family violence. The court also needed to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed and whether the appellant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

The court found that the primary judge had not erred in failing to find that the mother had engaged in family violence against the father and their children. The court held that the evidence did not support a finding of family violence by the mother, and that the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence. The court also found that the primary judge had properly considered the father's allegations of family violence, and that there was no error in the primary judge's approach. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal against the orders of Foster J made on 25 November 2015 be dismissed.

2.

The appellant father pay the respondent mother’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be fixed in the sum of $4,160.00, to be paid within forty‑two (42) days of these orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.