Slater and Light - [2011] FMCAfam 1021

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SLATER & LIGHT

[2011] FMCAfam 1021

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – trial previously adjourned and interim orders made – psychiatric opinion ordered – trial resumes – psychiatric evidence tested – psychiatric evidence and psychological evidence at odds.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65DAA

Weapons Act 1996 (Qld)

Slater & Slater [2010] FMCAfam 232
Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1
A v. A (1976) VR 298
Peterson & Cochrane [2008] FamCA 597

Applicant:

MR SLATER

Respondent:

MS LIGHT

File Number:

BRC 12787 of 2007

Judgment of:

Coates FM

Hearing dates:

18 April 2011 & 27 June 2011

Date of Last Submission:

27 June 2011

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

22 September 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr S Lynch

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Best Wilson Family Law

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Self represented

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Ms R Lyons

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Forest Glen Lawyers

ORDERS

That all previous orders are discharged.
That the children, [X] born [in] 2000, [Y] born [in] 2002 and [Z] born [in] 2003 (“the children”) live with the mother.
That the mother have sole parental responsibility for making decisions regarding the long term care, welfare and development of the children.
That in exercising her sole parental responsibility the mother shall (save in the case of an emergency with the children) advise the father by email of her intended decision and consult with him regarding that decision. The father shall provide any response by email within two days. The mother shall give genuine consideration to the father’s views in relation to the decision, but shall not be bound by his views.
That the mother shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with her.
That the children spend time with the father up to two hours each fortnight supervised at the [omitted] Children’s Contact Centre on times and days as can be accommodated by the Centre.
That the father is restrained from having contact with the children either by attending at their school or at any centre conducting extra-curricular activity or at any other time.
That the parents will keep each other informed of their residential address and home telephone number and will advise each other of any change within two days.
That the parents will keep each other informed of the names and address of any medical practitioner or educational institute that the children attend and will inform the other of any change within two days.
That the mother will continue family therapy with Mr L. and continue to attend in accordance with the recommendations of Mr L.. The mother shall be solely responsible for the costs of her counselling.
That the children attend counselling with Mr L. and will continue to attend in accordance with the recommendations of the Counsellor. Both parents shall equally share the costs of the children’s counselling.
That this order provides authority for Mr L. and Dr…

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 Slater and Light

Details

AGLC: Slater and Light [2011] FMCAfam 1021
Case: [2011] FMCAfam 1021
Decision Date: 22 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Slater and Light involved a dispute between the parents, the mother and the father, regarding the care and welfare of their three children, [X], [Y], and [Z]. The court was required to make decisions on various issues, including the living arrangements, parental responsibility, contact arrangements, and the provision of therapy for the children and parents. The court was also required to consider the need for the parents to maintain communication and provide information regarding their addresses and the children’s medical and educational needs.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the best interests of the children in relation to their living arrangements, parental responsibility, and contact with each parent. The court also had to consider the need for the parents to engage in family and individual therapy and the appropriate sharing of the costs of such therapy. Additionally, the court needed to establish guidelines for communication between the parents and the provision of information regarding the children’s welfare and the parents’ contact details.

The court found that it was in the best interests of the children for them to live with their mother, with sole parental responsibility resting with her for making decisions regarding their long term care, welfare, and development. The court ordered that the mother consult with the father regarding her decisions, but not be bound by his views. The court also ordered that the children spend limited supervised time with their father and that he be restrained from contacting the children at their school or other activities. The court further ordered that the parents engage in family and individual therapy and share the costs of such therapy equally. The court also established guidelines for communication between the parents and the provision of information regarding the children’s welfare and the parents’ contact details.

The final orders of the court included the discharge of all previous orders, the allocation of living arrangements and parental responsibility to the mother, the establishment of contact arrangements with the father, and the provision of family and individual therapy for the parents and children. The court also established guidelines for communication between the parents and the provision of information regarding the children’s welfare and the parents’ contact details.

Orders

Orders of the court

That all previous orders are discharged.

That the children, [X] born [in] 2000, [Y] born [in] 2002 and [Z] born [in] 2003 (“the children”) live with the mother.

That the mother have sole parental responsibility for making decisions regarding the long term care, welfare and development of the children.

That in exercising her sole parental responsibility the mother shall (save in the case of an emergency with the children) advise the father by email of her intended decision and consult with him regarding that decision. The father shall provide any response by email within two days. The mother shall give genuine consideration to the father’s views in relation to the decision, but shall not be bound by his views.

That the mother shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with her.

That the children spend time with the father up to two hours each fortnight supervised at the [omitted] Children’s Contact Centre on times and days as can be accommodated by the Centre.

That the father is restrained from having contact with the children either by attending at their school or at any centre conducting extra-curricular activity or at any other time.

That the parents will keep each other informed of their residential address and home telephone number and will advise each other of any change within two days.

That the parents will keep each other informed of the names and address of any medical practitioner or educational institute that the children attend and will inform the other of any change within two days.

10.

That the mother will continue family therapy with Mr L. and continue to attend in accordance with the recommendations of Mr L.. The mother shall be solely responsible for the costs of her counselling.

11.

That the children attend counselling with Mr L. and will continue to attend in accordance with the recommendations of the Counsellor. Both parents shall equally share the costs of the children’s counselling.

12.

That this order provides authority for Mr L. and Dr S. to consult with each other regarding their respective therapy with the parents in order to co-ordinate therapeutic interventions for their respective patients, if such consultation is permitted by law or within the ethical considerations of their professional associations.

13.

That the parties be restrained from discussing any adult issues regarding the Court proceedings and/or outcomes with or in the presence of or within hearing of the children.

14.

That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be 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.