Skerrett & Kryvenko - [2022] FedCFamC1F 400

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (DIVISION 1)
first instance
Skerrett & Kryvenko [2022] FedCFamC1F 400

File number(s): BRC 4906 of 2019

Judgment of: CAREW J

Date of judgment: 31 May 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where an order is made by consent of the parents – Where the independent children’s lawyer neither consented nor opposed parts of the Order
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where an order is made by consent of the parties

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Number of paragraphs: 10

Date of hearing: 30 – 31 May 2022

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Thomas

Solicitor for the Applicant: VM Family Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Arnold

Solicitor for the Respondent: The Rockhampton Law Practice

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Dr Sayers

Solicitor as the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Madden Solicitors
ORDER

BRC 4906 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR SKERRETT
Applicant

AND:
MS KRYVENKO
Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

order made by:

CAREW J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 MAY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:
Parenting
1.That all previous Orders and Parenting Plans be discharged.

Parental Responsibility
2.The applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the father” or “the husband”) have sole parental responsibility in respect of major long term decisions for the child, X born 2011 (“the child” or “X”) save that the father shall, prior to making any decision, consult with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the mother” or “the wife”), with such consultation to include but not be limited to:
(a)advising the mother in writing not less than 14 days prior to any decision intended to be made, save in the event of an emergency;
(b)seeking the mother’s written response in relation thereto and the mother to provide the father with the response within 7 days of receipt of the advice referred to in paragraph 2(a) hereof;
(c)considering by reference to the best interests of the child any such response prior to making any such decision; and
(d)advising the mother in writing as soon as practicable of his ultimate decision.

Live with
3.That the child live with the father and for this purpose:
(a)The father shall be permitted to relocate the child to the Brisbane region immediately and to remain there until 4 October 2022, by which time the father is to relocate to the City B region with X.
(b)The mother shall deliver the child to the office of Ms C at City D at 12.30pm on Thursday 2 June 2022 and the father shall collect the child forthwith thereafter (as directed by Ms C).
(c)Pursuant to s65L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Ms C will supervise the changeover pursuant to this clause, with the costs of Ms C’s services to be met by Legal Aid Queensland (if funding is made available) or otherwise by the father at first instance, but with those costs to be reimbursed to him from the proceeds of sale of the former…

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 Skerrett & Kryvenko

Details

AGLC: Skerrett & Kryvenko [2022] FedCFamC1F 400
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 400
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a case involving parenting and property arrangements between Mr Skerrett and Ms Kryvenko, the parents of a child named X. The dispute centered around the transition of X from living primarily with his mother to living with his father, alongside the division of their assets following separation. The parents had reached an agreement on the parenting arrangements, which included a phased reintroduction of the mother into X’s life, contingent on the father relocating to a different city with X. The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) had reservations about the rapid transition proposed in the parenting arrangements but supported the relocation of X to live with his father.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreed parenting and property arrangements were in the best interests of X and whether the property settlement proposed by the parents was just and equitable. The court had to ensure that the agreed terms would not negatively impact X's welfare and that the property division was fair.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Carew noted the significant concessions made by both parents to facilitate the transition and the commitment shown by each to X's best interests. The court was satisfied that the agreed parenting arrangements, despite the ICL's reservations, were in the best interests of X, as they aimed to present a united front to X, demonstrating the parents' love and commitment. The court also found the property settlement to be just and equitable, reflecting the agreement of the parties.

The court made the parenting and property orders as agreed by the parties, emphasizing the importance of the parents' commitment to X's welfare and the need for them to present a united front to their son. The court also highlighted the mother's commitment to attending counseling as a positive step towards improving her co-parenting skills and understanding the impact of involving X in adult issues.

Orders