Samad & Haider - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1256

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Samad & Haider [2022] FedCFamC2F 1256

File number(s): PAC 3296 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE STREET

Date of judgment: 16 September 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – final hearing – where the parties had one child aged 2 in the context of a very short relationship – where the Child is of a young age – where the Father had no earlier contact and then ceased supervised time with the Child – allegations of family violence – whether there should be shared parental responsibility – who the Child should live with – whether a supervised access regime between the Father and the Child – graduated time periods for meaningful relationship – change of name

Legislation: Family Law Act1975 (Cth) pt VII ss 4, 4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 60CG, 61C(1), 61DA, 61DA(1), 61DA(3), 64B, 65DAA, 65Y, 65Y(1)(c)(ii)

Cases cited:
Chace & Huxley [2021] FedCFamC1F 26

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 76

Date of hearing: 7-9 September 2022
12 September 2022

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R Druitt

Solicitor for the Applicant: Farrah Lawyers, Solicitors & Barristers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Richardson

Solicitor for the Respondent: Thurlows Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms S Hayward

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW
ORDERS

PAC 3296 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR SAMAD

Applicant

AND:
MS HAIDER

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE STREET

DATE OF ORDER:

16 September 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All earlier parenting orders are vacated.
2.The Mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born in 2020 (“the Child”).
3.The Child live with the Mother.
4.That the Father shall spend time with the Child as follows:
(a)Attending the D Program run by B Counsellors Suburb C for six supervised times once a fortnight for 2 hours over a period of approximately three months, and to that end the parties shall:
(i)Within 14 days of the date of these Orders each contact the D Program, complete and submit any necessary application form and arrange any necessary appointments for intake and assessment for suitability for the Father to spend supervised time with the Child;
(ii)Attend the intake assessment as directed by the D Program;
(iii)Comply with any appointments made by the D Program for supervised time;
(iv)Comply with all reasonable policies, rules, requests and directions of the staff of the D Program.

5.That the Father shall be solely responsible for all costs of spending supervised time with the Child.
6.That upon the conclusion of six supervised times by the Father pursuant to Order 4 above, the Father spend time with the Child unsupervised, as agreed between the parties in writing or failing agreement as follows:
(a)On the Child’s birthday from 2pm to 4pm;
(b)For a period of two months, from 10am to 12pm on a day to…

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 Samad & Haider

Details

AGLC: Samad & Haider [2022] FedCFamC2F 1256
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1256
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Samad & Haider involves a parenting dispute between the Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother. The couple has a child aged two and their relationship ended shortly after the birth of their child. The Father had initially sought sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with him. The Mother opposed these orders and sought sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her. The Independent Children's Lawyer also made final orders which the Court considered. The Court had to decide whether there should be shared parental responsibility, where the child should live, and the conditions under which the Father should have access to the child. The Court also had to consider whether there should be a change of the child's name and whether overseas travel may commence with the child. The Court found that there should not be shared parental responsibility and that the child should live with the Mother. The Court found that the Father's controlling behaviour and lack of insight meant that he should not have immediate access to the child. The Court found that there should be a change of the child's name to align with her half-siblings. The Court also found that the parties may take the child overseas once she has attained the age of six, being a Hague Convention country only. The Court made orders that the Mother should have sole parental responsibility, that the child should live with the Mother, and that the Father should have six supervised visits over a brief three month period before commencing a graduated period of time with the child.

Orders