SANSOM & RAPTIS - [2018] FCCA 3301

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SANSOM & RAPTIS

[2018] FCCA 3301

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting Orders – whether the father is an unacceptable risk to the child of the marriage – where the husband is a registered sex offender – where during these proceedings the husband was convicted of committing an indecent act in front of the wife’s then 8-year-old daughter during the marriage – where the wife seeks that the husband has no time with the now 5 year-old child who has never met his father.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4AB(2)(c), 60CA, 60CC, 64B.

Cases cited:

B & B (1993) FLC 92-357

Fitzpatrick & Fitzpatrick (2005) FLC 93-227
Irvine & Irvine (1995) FLC 92-624

M & M (1993) FLC 91-979

Re Andrew (1996) FLC 92-692; A v A (1998) FLC 92-800
Re W (Sex Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] Fam CA 768

Rhodes and Lewington [2017] FCWA 75

Sedgley & Sedgley & Cahill (1995) FLC 92-623

Applicant:

MS SANSOM

Respondent:

MR RAPTIS

File Number:

DGC 2631 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Small

Hearing date:

19 February 2018

Date of Last Submission:

20 February 2018

Delivered at:

Dandenong

Delivered on:

16 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent:

Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Self-represented

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Mr S Taghdir

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Taft Lawyers

ORDERS

All previous parenting orders in relation to the child [X] born 2013 (“the child”) are hereby discharged.
The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the child.
The child shall live with the mother.
The child shall spend no time with the father.
The order of Judge Small of 28 July 2014 for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer is hereby discharged.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Sansom & Raptis is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 2631 of 2013

MS SANSOM

Applicant

And

MR RAPTIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is a parenting matter between Ms Sansom or “the mother” and Mr Raptis or “the father”.
There is one child of the marriage, namely [X] or “the child” born 2013.
The child has lived with the mother since separation and spends no time with the father. To date, the child has never met his father.
The mother seeks orders that the father not spend time with, nor communicate with the child because the father is a registered sex offender and she fears for [X]’s safety in his care.
The father seeks orders that he spend no less than 2 hours weekly with the child, with time to be increased as the Court deems appropriate.
The issues to be decided in this case are:
A.Whether the father poses an unacceptable risk to the child
B.In light of the decision in Issue A, should the father spend time with the child?
C.If so, what time…

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 SANSOM & RAPTIS

Details

AGLC: SANSOM & RAPTIS [2018] FCCA 3301
Case: [2018] FCCA 3301
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Sansom & Raptis*, heard by Small J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2013. The court was required to determine the future parenting arrangements for the child, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the extent of time the child would spend with each parent.

The court's reasoning focused on the best interests of the child, as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Small J considered the relevant provisions of the Act, including sections 4AB(2)(c), 60CA, 60CC, and 64B, which guide the court in making decisions that promote the child's welfare. The decision reflects a careful assessment of the circumstances presented to the court, leading to a determination that departed significantly from previous arrangements.

Ultimately, Small J ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders concerning the child. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with her. Crucially, the father was ordered to spend no time with the child. The prior appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer was also discharged.

Orders

Orders of the court

All previous parenting orders in relation to the child [X] born 2013 (“the child”) are hereby discharged.

The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the child.

The child shall live with the mother.

The child shall spend no time with the father.

The order of Judge Small of 28 July 2014 for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer is hereby discharged.

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.