Rigby & Olsen

The appeal was brought by the father, who sought to challenge a decision made by the Family Court of Australia regarding the custody and care of his child. The mother, who had been the primary carer since the child's birth, was granted sole parental responsibility, with the father to have supervised visitation. The father argued that the primary judge's findings about his controlling behaviour, violence, and the risk he posed to the child were flawed, and that the decision should be overturned.

The court needed to determine whether the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence and whether they were legally sound. The appeal hinged on the primary judge's assessment of the risk posed by the father to the child and the mother's capacity to parent effectively despite her past mental health issues. The father argued that the primary judge had not properly considered evidence suggesting that the mother could manage her mental health and that he posed no real risk to the child.

The court of appeal held that the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence and were not clearly wrong. The court recognised the primary judge's advantage in assessing witness credibility and found no error in the reasoning process. The appeal court concluded that the father had not demonstrated that the primary judge's findings were "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to competing inferences." The court emphasised that the primary judge had appropriately weighed the evidence, including expert opinions and the mother's testimony, to determine the best interests of the child.

The appeal was dismissed, and the primary judge's orders regarding the child's care and supervision were upheld. The court reaffirmed that the primary judge's determination, based on the unacceptable risk posed by the father, was in the best interests of the child. The mother was to continue exercising sole parental responsibility, with the father having supervised visitation only.