SOLAGE & HIGHGATE - [2018] FamCA 780

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOLAGE & HIGHGATE

[2018] FamCA 780

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – Best interests of the children –
Where consideration of applicable principles – Where father has long standing mental health issues and recent alcohol issues– Where father not fulsome in disclosure of his mental health issues – Where consideration of risk to the children – Where mother is the primary carer of the father – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer has concerns for the children in the father’s care – Where father has perpetrated family violence – Where mother should have sole parental responsibility – Where children to have supervised time with the father.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 32

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
Eaby & Speelman (2015) FamCAFC 104
George & George [2013] FamCAFC 182
Goode and Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
Marvel v Marvel (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101
Mazorski v Albright[2007] FamCA 520
MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4
Smith & Smith [2017] FamCAFC 226
SS & AH[2010] FamCAFC 13

APPLICANT:

Ms Solage

RESPONDENT:

Mr Highgate

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

David Duncombe

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5387

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

28 September 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

13 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Grew

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Gordon

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

ABF Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Druitt

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Dignan And Hanrahan Solicitors and Attorneys

Orders, Pending further order:

That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children X born … 2010 and Y born … 2011.
That the children live with the mother.
That the children spend time with the father as agreed between the mother and father in writing such writing to include SMS or email communication and in default of agreement as follows:
(a)each alternate weekend for a period of three months from this date on a day agreed between the parties in writing such writing to include SMS or email communication and in default of agreement on a Saturday for not more than four hours under the supervision of a community-based professional supervision service to be agreed between the parties in writing such writing to include SMS or email communication and in default of agreement such service as is nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer provided always that the cost of such supervision shall be paid by the father;
(b)thereafter each alternate weekend on a day agreed between the parties in writing such writing to include SMS or email communication and in default of agreement on a Saturday for not more than six four hours under the supervision of either:
(i)a community-based professional supervision service to be agreed between the parties in writing such writing to…

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 SOLAGE & HIGHGATE

Details

AGLC: SOLAGE & HIGHGATE [2018] FamCA 780
Case: [2018] FamCA 780
Decision Date: 28 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Solage & Highgate* concerned a dispute between Solage and Highgate, heard before Foster J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal matter requiring judicial determination.

The central legal issue before Foster J was to determine the rights and obligations of the parties in relation to the subject matter of their dispute. This would have involved an analysis of the relevant legal principles and any applicable legislation or case law governing the situation.

Foster J's reasoning and the legal principles applied would have been based on the evidence presented and the submissions made by the parties. The judgment would have articulated the court's interpretation of the law and its application to the specific facts of the case to reach a conclusion.

The final orders or outcome of the case would have been the formal pronouncement by Foster J, resolving the dispute between Solage and Highgate according to the law.

Orders