SCRANTON & SCRANTON - [2015] FamCA 496

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCRANTON & SCRANTON

[2015] FamCA 496

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim parenting – application to vary final parenting orders to allow the children to travel overseas with the mother – where best interests of the children considered – where the parents’ attitudes to the responsibilities of parenthood is a significant consideration

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

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286, (2007) 26 Fam LR 422, [2006] FamCA 1346
Scranton & Scranton [2010] FMCAfam 1160

APPLICANT:

Ms Scranton

RESPONDENT:

Mr Scranton

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3475

2009

DATE DELIVERED:

29 June 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

15 June 2015

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT – LITIGANT IN PERSON:

Ms Scranton

RESPONDENT – LITIGANT IN PERSON

Mr Scranton

Orders

The Respondent father is to file a Notice of Address for Service in this Registry forthwith.
The Applicant mother be permitted to travel to the United States with X born … 2000 and Y born … 2003 (“the children”) during the period from 11 July 2015 to 2 August 2015.
The Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia release the said children’s passports to the mother so as to facilitate the children’s travel with the mother and the mother return the children’s passports to the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court within 21 days of her return to Sydney.
Within 7 days of the making of these orders the Applicant shall provide to the Respondent a mobile telephone number which she uses regularly and which is not the number for a mobile phone normally carried by either of the children.
That within 7 days of the making of this order the Applicant shall provide to the Respondent either:
(a)An email address which she uses regularly and which is not blocked to prevent reception of email from the Respondent; or
(b)The email address of her legal representative
That each of the parties only use the telephone number and email address referred to in orders 4 and 5 for the purposes of communication regarding the father’s time with the children, travel for the children with either of the parents and for the purposes associated with the conduct of these proceedings but for no other purposes.
The father’s application for interim orders contained in his Response is, otherwise, dismissed.
The mother’s application for final orders is to be adjourned on a date to be fixed and notified by the Registry to the parties.
The mother is to file and serve 10 business days prior to the adjourned date any amended Application for final orders.
The father is to file a Response thereto 3 business days prior to the adjourned date.
Leave is granted to the father to appear on the next occasion by video link provided that such arrangements are made by him contacting the Registry 10 days prior to the next adjourned date to enable the technical arrangements to be made.
Reasons for decision are to be published…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SCRANTON & SCRANTON and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FamCA 496
Decision Date: 29 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scranton & Scranton involved an application by the mother for permission to travel to the United States with the parties' two children, born in 2000 and 2003, during the period of 11 July 2015 to 2 August 2015. The father had filed a response which included an application for interim orders. The proceedings were before Hannam J of the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the mother's application for international travel for the children, and consequently, the release of their passports. Ancillary to this, the court was required to consider the father's application for interim orders and the terms of communication and contact between the parties regarding the children.

Hannam J reasoned that the mother's application for travel should be granted, ordering the release of the children's passports to facilitate the trip and their return upon arrival back in Sydney. The court also made orders concerning communication, requiring the mother to provide a mobile telephone number and an email address for the purpose of communication solely related to the children's welfare, travel, and the proceedings. The father's application for interim orders was otherwise dismissed, and his application for final orders was withdrawn and dismissed. The mother's application for final orders was adjourned for a date to be fixed, with directions for filing and service of amended applications and responses. Leave was granted for the father to appear on the next occasion by video link.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent father is to file a Notice of Address for Service in this Registry forthwith.

The Applicant mother be permitted to travel to the United States with X born … 2000 and Y born … 2003 (“the children”) during the period from 11 July 2015 to 2 August 2015.

The Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia release the said children’s passports to the mother so as to facilitate the children’s travel with the mother and the mother return the children’s passports to the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court within 21 days of her return to Sydney.

Within 7 days of the making of these orders the Applicant shall provide to the Respondent a mobile telephone number which she uses regularly and which is not the number for a mobile phone normally carried by either of the children.

That within 7 days of the making of this order the Applicant shall provide to the Respondent either:

(a) An email address which she uses regularly and which is not blocked to prevent reception of email from the Respondent; or

(b) The email address of her legal representative

That each of the parties only use the telephone number and email address referred to in orders 4 and 5 for the purposes of communication regarding the father’s time with the children, travel for the children with either of the parents and for the purposes associated with the conduct of these proceedings but for no other purposes.

The father’s application for interim orders contained in his Response is, otherwise, dismissed.

The mother’s application for final orders is to be adjourned on a date to be fixed and notified by the Registry to the parties.

The mother is to file and serve 10 business days prior to the adjourned date any amended Application for final orders.

10.

The father is to file a Response thereto 3 business days prior to the adjourned date.

11.

Leave is granted to the father to appear on the next occasion by video link provided that such arrangements are made by him contacting the Registry 10 days prior to the next adjourned date to enable the technical arrangements to be made.

12.

Reasons for decision are to be published on a date to be fixed.

13.

The father is excused from attending Court when the reasons for my decisions are delivered.

Notation

14.

The father’s application for final orders in his Response filed 12 June 2015 is withdrawn and dismissed.

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.