Ryder & Donaldson

In the matter of Ryder & Donaldson, the respondent, who was the primary carer of the child, appealed against orders made by the Family Court of Australia that altered the child's primary carer and adjusted the time orders, starting with supervised time and moving to unsupervised time. The appellant argued that the primary judge's findings were inconsistent with the orders made, the orders were unsupported by the evidence, and the evidence was misconstrued. The appellant also contended that the primary judge failed to consider the orders in the event the child was removed from the care of the primary carer. The respondent, in turn, argued that the appeal should be dismissed and that the appellant should pay costs on an indemnity basis.

The court considered the adequacy of reasons provided by the primary judge and whether the orders made were inconsistent with the findings and unsupported by the evidence. The court found that the primary judge's reasons were adequate and that the orders made were consistent with the findings and supported by the evidence. The court also found that the evidence was not misconstrued and that the primary judge had considered the orders in the event the child was removed from the care of the primary carer. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs on a party-party basis, as the matter did not attract indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $7,575.87, within sixty days. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records. This decision highlights the importance of providing adequate reasons for orders made in parenting cases, and the need for the primary judge to consider all relevant factors, including the possibility of the child being removed from the care of the primary carer.