FAMILY LAW – Parenting and property Applications – Stay application in relation to interim parenting Orders of 10 February 2022 – extremely poorly prepared Application made it impossible to determine what the grounds of appeal are – complete lack of evidence and complete poverty in the minimal authority cited – Application refused with all costs reserved potentially on an indemnity basis.
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR RONG Applicant
AND:
MS HUAN Respondent
LEGAL AID ACT Independent Children’s Lawyer
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE W J NEVILLE
DATE OF ORDER:
29 MARCH 2022
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Proceeding, filed 10th March 2022, seeking a stay of the Orders of the Court dated 10th February 2022, be refused and dismissed.
2.The parties’ costs be reserved, including indemnity costs.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family…
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 Rong & Huan (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Rong & Huan (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 429
Case
[2022] FedCFamC2F 429
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The father, Rong, filed an application for a stay of the interim parenting orders made on 10 February 2022. The orders required the child Y to be returned to Australia from China. The mother, Huan, opposed the application for a stay. The court was required to decide whether to grant a stay of the orders and, if so, on what terms. The court considered the legal principles applicable to a stay application, including the importance of the best interests of the child, the desirability of limiting changes in a child’s living arrangements, and the strength of the proposed appeal. The court also considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the father’s application for a stay was poorly prepared and lacked evidentiary support. The court found that the father had failed to provide any evidence from Y’s primary carers in China, his paternal grandparents. The court found that the father’s arguments were generalised, unspecific, and unsupported by evidence or authority. The court found that the father’s conduct in relation to the stay application was antithetical to a proper assessment of the merits of the appeal. The court found that the refusal to grant a stay was not in the best interests of either or both children. The court refused the application for a stay and dismissed it with all costs reserved, including any application for indemnity costs.