SASTRY & SASTRY - [2019] FCCA 3526

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SASTRY & SASTRY

[2019] FCCA 3526

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – best interests of children – orders made.

Legislation:

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

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCA 240

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Applicant:

MR SASTRY

Respondent:

MS SASTRY

File Number:

PAC 5827 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

3 December 2019

Date of Last Submission:

3 December 2019

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

11 December 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Greenaway

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ms Audisho

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Mr Hamka

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Mr Samuel

ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

That the children of the marriage namely X born in 2008 and Y born in 2011 live with the mother.
That the children spend time with the father as follows:-

2.1.During school terms each alternate week from the conclusion of school on Friday until the commencement of school on Tuesday with the father to collect the children from and deliver the children to their respective schools in order to give effect to this order;
2.2.The children are to spend the first half of the long summer NSW school holidays with the father and the second half with the mother;
2.3.For the shorter NSW school holidays, the children are to spend the first half with the mother and the second half with the father in odd years, and in even years, the children are to spend the first half of the holidays with the father and the second half with the mother;

2.4.
In the event that Father’s Day falls on a weekend when the children would not otherwise be spending time with the father pursuant to these orders the children are to spend from 9.00am to 5.00pm on Father’s Day with the father;

2.5.
.Should mother’s day fall on a weekend when the children would be spending time with the father pursuant to these orders such time is to be suspended from 9.00am to 5.00pm on mother’s day;

2.6.
During the Christmas period by agreement between the parties.

2.7.
During the Diwali period by agreement between the parties; and

2.8.
Or as otherwise agreed to by the parties.

In order to give effect to the above orders all changeovers are to take place at the children’s schools where this is possible otherwise they shall be at a public venue as agreed to by the parties in writing and in the absence of such agreement at McDonalds at Suburb A.

That each parent shall have reasonable telephone communications with the children during any periods that the children are in the other parents care and that each parent is to facilitate the children in having such telephone communications with the other parent.

That the mother have sole parental responsibility in respect to the children’s schooling.

That WITHOUT ADMISSION the mother and the father be…

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 SASTRY & SASTRY

Details

AGLC: SASTRY & SASTRY [2019] FCCA 3526
Case: [2019] FCCA 3526
Decision Date: 11 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Sastry & Sastry*, the parties were engaged in proceedings concerning interim parenting orders for their children. The matter came before Newbrun J in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine the interim parenting arrangements for the children, with a paramount consideration being the best interests of the children as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved assessing the immediate needs and welfare of the children in the context of the ongoing dispute between the parents.

Newbrun J applied the principles governing interim parenting orders, focusing on the need for stability and the avoidance of prejudice to the children's welfare pending a final determination. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the children's living arrangements, their relationship with each parent, and any potential risks or concerns. The paramountcy of the children's best interests guided the court's assessment of what interim orders would best serve their physical, psychological, and emotional well-being.

The court made interim orders regarding the children's living arrangements and time with each parent, designed to provide a stable and predictable environment while the substantive proceedings continued.

Orders