SCVG & KLD

In the case of SCVG & KLD, the father appealed against the orders made by a Federal Magistrate in parenting proceedings involving his two children. The father contended that the Federal Magistrate had erred in law by considering the statutory provisions of s 60CC before s 65DAA, thereby prejudicing the proper consideration of s 65DAA. The father also argued that the Federal Magistrate's reliance on academic writings, observations of the father during cross-examination, and failure to discuss certain orders with the parties amounted to procedural unfairness and a denial of natural justice. The father further submitted that the Federal Magistrate erred in his acceptance of expert opinion evidence, findings of fact, and in providing adequate reasons for his determinations.

The court examined the arguments and found that the Federal Magistrate did not make an error in law by considering s 60CC before s 65DAA, as it was not established that this approach rendered the orders beyond power. The court held that the Federal Magistrate did not impermissibly rely on his observations of the father during cross-examination or deny procedural fairness by making orders without discussing them with the parties. The court also found that the Federal Magistrate did not impermissibly accept any part of the expert opinion evidence or err in his findings of fact. The court held that the reasons provided by the Federal Magistrate were adequate for the findings and conclusions made.

The court dismissed the father's appeal and ordered the father to pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed on a party and party basis.