[1993] FamCA 62
BETWEEN:R
APPELLANT/HUSBAND
ANDC
RESPONDENT/WIFE
Appeal No SA45 OF 1992
No. AD449 OF 1988
IN THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FOGARTY, BAKER AND LINDENMAYER JJ
HRNG
ADELAIDE, 31 March 1993
DATE 25:6:1993
Mr D Haines, instructed by Greg McGee, Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the
Appellant Husband.
The Respondent Wife appeared in person.
Miss Ross, instructed by Legal Services Commission, appeared on behalf of
the Separate Representative.
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGE1
FOGARTY, BAKER AND LINDENMAYER JJThis is an appeal from orders made by
Justice Bulbeck on 9 October 1992, defining access by the husband to the two
children of the marriage, M and A. The relevant orders were:
"3. That the wife do give and the husband do have access to
two infant children of the marriage now dissolved on alternate
Saturdays from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm on and from the 10th day of
October 1992 and from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm on alternate Sundays on
and from the 11th day of October 1992.
4. That the wife do give and the husband do have access to the
said children during each school holiday period between the hours
of 9.00 am and 6.00 pm on such days as agreed between the parties
to the intent that the total access does not exceed one half of
each such school holiday period and in default of agreement on
such dates to the same intent as may be ordered by the Court.
5. That the parties do attend to effect the delivery and
return of the said children at the commencement and conclusion of
all access periods at the police station at Suburb G in the State
of South Australia unless the parties shall have agreed in
advance in writing to effect such delivery and return elsewhere."
HISTORY
2.The husband was born in the UK in 1948 and the wife was born in Country H
in 1955. The parties were married in Country H in 1982. The parties
moved to Australia shortly thereafter and separated in January 1988. There
were two children born to the union, M in 1984 and A in 1986.
3.Following the separation the parties agreed that the husband have access
to the two children each Saturday afternoon and in April 1988 the access
arrangement was varied, whereby the husband exercised access each weekend from
10.00a.m. on Saturdays until 1.00 pm on Sundays. In April 1989, access was
again altered by agreement of the parties, as a result of which the husband
exercised access on alternate weekends from 10.00 am on Saturday until 1.00 pm
on Sunday.
4.In October 1988 the husband gave an undertaking, without admissions, that
he would not, during access or otherwise, give alcohol to the children, swear
at them or at the wife, or attend unannounced at her premises.
5.The husband continued to exercise alternate overnight weekend access
until, on 27 September 1991, after an argument between the parties concerning
the husband's smoking in the presence…
Continue reading Russell & Close
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Russell & Close [1993] FamCA 62
- Case
- [1993] FamCA 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Full Federal Court was the determination of the appeal brought by one of the parties. The court was required to consider the grounds of appeal and decide whether to uphold or overturn the decision of the lower court.
The court's reasoning and the legal principles applied in reaching its decision are not elaborated upon in the provided text. However, the outcome indicates that the court found no error in the decision under appeal.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.