RLR & DB

This matter concerned an appeal against orders made by a trial judge regarding the residence and contact arrangements for children. The appellant, the mother, contended that the trial judge had erred in her factual findings concerning the children's primary attachment to either parent. The trial judge had found, based on the evidence of a counsellor, that the children were not more attached to one parent than the other. While this finding might have favoured the mother, the overall assessment of the children's best interests led the trial judge to conclude that residence with the father was appropriate. The appellant also argued that the trial judge had failed to view her attitude towards the father more favourably, considering his conduct during the marriage, but this argument had not been raised at trial. Furthermore, the appellant's assertion that the trial judge could not have found a close relationship between the paternal grandmother and the children was also unsuccessful, as this finding was based on the appellant's own evidence and the absence of controversy regarding that relationship meant the grandmother's evidence was not essential.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had made errors of fact in her assessment of the children's attachments and the significance of the paternal grandmother's relationship, and whether the trial judge had erred in her overall determination of the children's best interests. The Court also considered an application to adduce further evidence on appeal.

The Full Court found that the trial judge's conclusions of fact were open to her on the evidence presented. The finding regarding the children's attachment was supported by the counsellor's evidence, and the trial judge's assessment that this factor did not definitively favour either parent was a permissible conclusion. The Court also held that the argument concerning the mother's attitude towards the father was not properly before the trial judge and therefore could not be a ground for appeal. Regarding the paternal grandmother, the Court found that the trial judge's reliance on the appellant's own evidence to establish the close relationship was sound, and the fact that the grandmother did not give evidence did not invalidate this finding. The application to adduce further evidence was refused, as the Court determined that such evidence would not have altered the outcome of the trial judge's decision, following the principles in *CDJ v VAJ*.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to contribute $3,333 towards the father's costs.