Rose & Frazer - [2025] FedCFamC2F 848

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Rose & Frazer [2025] FedCFamC2F 848

File number(s): SYC 9980 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 20 June 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Review of decision – review of orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar for the mother to return the child to reside in the Sydney area – where the mother relocated with the child with the consent of the father for a period – where the father did not consent to the relocation on a permanent basis – review dismissed

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) pt VII, ss 60CC(2), 60CC(2)(a), 60CC (2A), 60CC(2A)(a), 60CC (3)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 252

Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021(Cth) ch 14 pt 14.3, sch 4 cl 2, rr 14.05, 14.07

Cases cited:
Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 52

Date of hearing: 28 May 2025

Place: Hobart

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Shea

Solicitor for the Applicant: Unified Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Todd

Solicitor for the Respondent: Shelly Legal
ORDERS

SYC 9980 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR ROSE

Applicant

AND:
MS FRAZER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Review filed 23 April 2025 and the Amended Application for Review filed 27 May 2025 are dismissed.
2.The Stay order made 13 May 2025 is discharged.
3.The time for compliance with order 1 made 9 April 2025 is extended to 20 September 2025.
4.The father contribute 50% of the bond payable by the mother upon her securing a rental property in Sydney on condition the mother provide a copy of a document from the relevant real estate agent identifying the bond payable.

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Taglieri

These are parenting proceedings between Mr Rose (“the father”) and Ms Frazer (“the mother”) concerning their child X born in 2020 (“the child”). They came before me on 28…

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 Rose & Frazer

Details

AGLC: Rose & Frazer [2025] FedCFamC2F 848
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 848
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Rose filed an application seeking a review of a decision by a Senior Judicial Registrar which ordered that his daughter reside in the Sydney area with her mother, Ms Frazer. The Registrar had made the decision based on the parties' consent that the child relocate to Sydney for a period. Mr Rose did not consent to the relocation on a permanent basis. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was required to determine whether the Senior Judicial Registrar had exercised his discretion in making the decision appropriately. The court considered the welfare of the child to be paramount and whether the Senior Judicial Registrar had properly exercised his discretion in making the decision.

The court found that the Senior Judicial Registrar had exercised his discretion appropriately and dismissed the application for review. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, case law, and the welfare of the child in reaching its decision. The court noted that the Senior Judicial Registrar had considered the relevant factors and had not made an error in exercising his discretion. The court found that the Senior Judicial Registrar had appropriately exercised his discretion in making the decision and that the decision was in the best interests of the child.

The court dismissed the application for review and discharged the stay order made by the Senior Judicial Registrar. The court extended the time for compliance with the order made by the Senior Judicial Registrar to 20 September 2025. The court ordered that the father contribute 50% of the bond payable by the mother upon her securing a rental property in Sydney on condition that the mother provide a copy of a document from the relevant real estate agent identifying the bond payable. The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 9980 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR ROSE

Applicant

AND:

MS FRAZER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application for Review filed 23 April 2025 and the Amended Application for Review filed 27 May 2025 are dismissed.

2. The Stay order made 13 May 2025 is discharged.

3. The time for compliance with order 1 made 9 April 2025 is extended to 20 September 2025.

4. The father contribute 50% of the bond payable by the mother upon her securing a rental property in Sydney on condition the mother provide a copy of a document from the relevant real estate agent identifying the bond payable.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	SYC 9980 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
Date of judgment:	20 June 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Review of decision – review of orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar for the mother to return the child to reside in the Sydney area – where the mother relocated with the child with the consent of the father for a period – where the father did not consent to the relocation on a permanent basis – review dismissed
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) pt VII, ss 60CC(2), 60CC(2)(a), 60CC (2A), 60CC(2A)(a), 60CC (3) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 252 Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021(Cth) ch 14 pt 14.3, sch 4 cl 2, rr 14.05, 14.07
Cases cited:	Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	52
Date of hearing:	28 May 2025
Place:	Hobart
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Shea
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Unified Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Todd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Shelly Legal

SYC 9980 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR ROSE Applicant
AND:	MS FRAZER Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:	20 JUNE 2025