Rivers & Anor and Rivers & Anor - [2018] FamCA 399

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RIVERS AND ANOR & RIVERS AND ANOR

[2018] FamCA 399

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – The rule in Rice & Asplund – Application and consideration of the rule in Rice & Asplund – The best interests of the child or children – Where the children have been involved in litigation for 4 years – Where litigation was settled by final orders as between the mother and the father – Where the paternal grandparents seek orders in their own right – Where the children are of an age that it is likely that a view expressed by them would be given considerable weight in any further parenting dispute – Where the mother opposes the application – Child Inclusive Counselling ordered

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3)

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
Freeman & Freeman (1987) FLC 91-857
In the Marriage of McEnearney & McEnearney (1980) FLC 90-866
Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156
Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
Searson & Searson (2017) FLC 93-788
SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93-363

APPLICANTS:

Mr C Rivers and Ms D Rivers

FIRST RESPONDENT:

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms A Rivers

Ms B Rivers

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

6267

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

1 June 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

18 May 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS:	Ms Vohra SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANTS:	Resolve Divorce Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT:

Mr Linklater-Steele

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT:

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT:

Barry Nilsson Lawyers

No appearance

Orders

That the parties and X born … 2002 and Y born … 2006 do engage in a Child Inclusive Conference with a family consultant pursuant to s 11F of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
That the parties be at liberty to relist the matter on twenty one (21) days’ notice following the receipt of the Child Inclusive Memorandum.

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 Rivers and Anor & Rivers and Anor 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 Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 6267 of 2014

Mr C Rivers and Ms D Rivers

Applicant

And

Ms A Rivers

First Respondent

And

Ms B Rivers
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

By Initiating Application filed 15 February 2018, Mr C Rivers and Ms D Rivers (“the paternal grandparents”) seek orders that X born in 2002 (“X”) and Y born…

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 Rivers & Anor and Rivers & Anor

Details

AGLC: Rivers & Anor and Rivers & Anor [2018] FamCA 399
Case: [2018] FamCA 399
Decision Date: 1 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rivers & Anor and Rivers & Anor, Berman J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between parties concerning their children. The specific nature of the dispute, beyond its relation to the children, is not detailed in the provided text.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate procedural step to take in light of the children's involvement in the proceedings. This involved determining whether a Child Inclusive Conference was a necessary or beneficial measure under the relevant legislation.

Berman J ordered that the parties and their children, X and Y, engage in a Child Inclusive Conference with a family consultant, pursuant to section 11F of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This decision indicates the court's view that direct input or consideration of the children's perspectives, facilitated by a professional, was warranted in resolving the matter. The court further provided for the relisting of the matter upon receipt of the conference memorandum, allowing for further directions after the conference.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the parties and X born … 2002 and Y born … 2006 do engage in a Child Inclusive Conference with a family consultant pursuant to s 11F of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

That the parties be at liberty to relist the matter on twenty one (21) days’ notice following the receipt of the Child Inclusive Memorandum.

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.