Ristic & Ristic - [2022] FedCFamC1F 482

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Ristic & Ristic [2022] FedCFamC1F 482

File number(s): BRC 2563 of 2019

Judgment of: BAUMANN J

Date of judgment: 27 May 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Parental responsibility – Where the presumption is not rebutted – Orders made for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases cited: Vallans & Vallans [2019] FamCAFC 260; (2019) 60 Fam LR 193

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 19

Date of hearing: 11, 12, 13 & 27 May 2022

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms P Zande

Solicitor for the Applicant: Raiti Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K Carmody

Solicitor for the Respondent: Aylward Game Solicitors

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms K Oakley

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Life Law Solutions
ORDERS

BRC 2563 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR RISTIC

Applicant

AND:
MS RISTIC

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MAY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That except as otherwise stated, the parents shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long term issues of the child, X born in 2017 (“the child”), including but not limited to:
(a)the child’s education (both current and future);
(b)the child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)the child’s health;
(d)the child’s name; and
(e)changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with each parent.

2.That the parents are to consult with each other about decisions to be made in the exercise of their equal shared parental responsibility as follows:
(a)They shall inform the other parent about the decision to be made;
(b)They shall consult with each other on terms that they agree; and
(c)They shall make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

3.That notwithstanding the provision of Order 2:
(a)the mother shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the child when the child is living with or spending time with her; and
(b)the father shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the child when the child is living with or spending time with him.

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT ON A FINAL BASIS:
4.That the child live with the mother.
5.That the child spend time with the father during the school terms as follows:
(a)Until the child commences school, in each fortnight as follows:
(i)In week one (1) from the conclusion of day care or 5.00pm on Friday to 10.00am on Saturday; and
(ii)In week two (2) from the conclusion of day care or 5.00pm Friday to 10.00am Saturday.

(b)Once the child commences school, in each alternate weekend from after school on Friday to before school Monday, or before school Tuesday if Monday is a public holiday or pupil dree day.

Special occasions
6.That the child will spend time with the parents on special occasions as…

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 Ristic & Ristic

Details

AGLC: Ristic & Ristic [2022] FedCFamC1F 482
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 482
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Ristic & Ristic involved a dispute between the parents regarding the parenting arrangements for their child, X, born in 2017. The primary issue was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, given the mother's desire to relocate with the child overseas. The court examined the communication between the parents and the impact it had on the child's best interests. Additionally, the court considered the father's drug use and the need for him to take responsibility for his actions to ensure the child's safety and well-being.

The court found that although the mother's desire to relocate with the child was not unreasonable, the communication between the parents was insufficient to make equal time reasonably practicable or in the best interests of the child. The court also acknowledged the father's inappropriate behaviour and drug use, which necessitated the need for him to take responsibility for his actions. Ultimately, the court decided that the parents should have equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues of the child, with specific arrangements for time-sharing and communication between the parents. The court emphasized the importance of the parents working together for the child's best interests and cautioned the father against continuing his drug use, warning that failure to do so could result in future court intervention.

Orders