Salt and Salt - [2019] FamCA 978

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SALT & SALT

[2019] FamCA 978

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Child exploitation material – Conduct in internet chat rooms – long term supervision

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65DAA

Johnson & Page [2007] FamCA 1235

M v M (1998) 197 CLR 250
Moose & Moose [2008] FamCAFC 108
N & S (1996) FLC 92-655
Phillips & Hansford [2019] FamCAFC 165
Sahrawi & Hadrami [2018] FamCAFC 170

APPLICANT:

Mr Salt

RESPONDENT:

Ms Salt

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms J Lloyd

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

1754

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

18 December 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Gill J

HEARING DATE:

17 - 21 September 2018 & 6 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr R Hoult with
Ms M Davis

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Infinity Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr P O’Shannesy

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Jeanine Lloyd & Associates

Orders

The Mother has sole parental responsibility for the child H (“the child”), born … 2014.
That notwithstanding Order 1 above, the Mother shall inform the Father of any major long-term decision in relation to the child’s health, education or religion as soon as practicable following the making of such decision.
That the child live with the Mother.
That the Father spend time with the child for a period of up to three hours on four separate occasions each calendar year, with such time to be supervised by Z Contact Centre or an agreed equivalent professional supervision agency, at dates and times to be agreed, and failing agreement on the second Saturday in March, June, September and December from 10:00am to 1:00pm.
For the purpose of Order 4 above, the Father will meet the costs for such supervision.
It is noted that the transcript of the proceedings as conducted on 17 September 2018, and Exhibits M3-M6, M8-33, M36 and F2 are held securely in the Canberra Registry of the Family Court of Australia on the basis that they contain child exploitation material which may be unlawful to possess.
It is ordered that no person is to access or uplift the material referred to above without the leave of a Judge or Registrar of the Family Court of Australia.
Notwithstanding the preceding order the material referred to above may be returned to the Australian Federal Police following the expiration of all relevant appeal periods.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Salt & Salt has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant…

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 Salt and Salt

Details

AGLC: Salt and Salt [2019] FamCA 978
Case: [2019] FamCA 978
Decision Date: 18 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Salt and Salt*, heard by Gill J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2014. The proceedings involved an application by the Mother for sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her, with specific arrangements for the Father's time with the child.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the child, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the nature and extent of the Father's time with the child, including the necessity and conditions of supervision.

Gill J ordered that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with her. However, the Mother was directed to inform the Father of any major long-term decisions concerning the child's health, education, or religion as soon as practicable. The Father was granted supervised time with the child for up to three hours on four separate occasions each calendar year, to be supervised by Z Contact Centre or an equivalent agency. The specific dates and times for this contact were to be agreed upon, failing which they would occur on the second Saturday of March, June, September, and December from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm. The Father was ordered to bear the costs of this supervision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Mother has sole parental responsibility for the child H (“the child”), born … 2014.

That notwithstanding Order 1 above, the Mother shall inform the Father of any major long-term decision in relation to the child’s health, education or religion as soon as practicable following the making of such decision.

That the child live with the Mother.

That the Father spend time with the child for a period of up to three hours on four separate occasions each calendar year, with such time to be supervised by Z Contact Centre or an agreed equivalent professional supervision agency, at dates and times to be agreed, and failing agreement on the second Saturday in March, June, September and December from 10:00am to 1:00pm.

For the purpose of Order 4 above, the Father will meet the costs for such supervision.

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.