FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| STAPLETON & HAYES | [2011] FamCAFC 70 |
| FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the mother made allegations of sexual abuse – Where the allegations were found to be groundless – Where there is risk of psychological and emotional harm to the children from the mother – Where the decision of the trial judge reversed the parenting arrangements for the children – Children to live with the father and the father to have sole parental responsibility. FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the appeal is from a discretionary judgment – Where it was submitted the trial judge was in error in her finding that the sexual abuse allegations were groundless – Where her Honour, having regard to the findings of fact was able to find that the alleged incidents of sexual abuse did not occur – Where it was submitted that the trial judge erred in her finding that the mother was suffering a mental illness – Where it was argued that the trial judge had uncritically accepted the evidence of the report writer in circumstances where the report writer had not been requested to make findings on that basis – Where it was found that the trial judge was justified in making the findings in relation to the mother’s mental illness and the risk that this posed to the children – Where it was said that the trial judge erred in removing the children from the care of the mother in the absence of any direct evidence of the psychological or emotional impact on the children – Where the trial judge was found to have carefully considered the impact of the change on the children and the risk of remaining in the mother’s care – Appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW - APPLICATION – Application filed by the father seeking an order that the mother be viewed as and declared a vexatious litigant – Where the determination of this appeal would bring an end to the litigation – Application dismissed. FAMILY LAW - COSTS – Orders made allowing the Independent Children’s Lawyer to file written submissions for costs and for the mother to reply to any such submissions. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) |
| Casley & Casley [2010] FamCAFC 189 Devries and Another v Australian National Railways Commission and Another (1993) 177 CLR 472 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] 52 NSWLR 705 M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 Rogers v R (1994) HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251 W v W [Abuse allegations: unacceptable risk] (2006) FLR 129 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Stapleton |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Hayes |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Legal Aid NSW |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2750 | of | 2007 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 68 | of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 31 March 2011 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Bryant CJ, May & Cronin JJ |
| HEARING DATE: |
Continue reading STAPLETON & HAYES
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- STAPLETON & HAYES [2011] FamCAFC 70
- Case
- [2011] FamCAFC 70
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge was correct in finding the allegations of sexual abuse to be groundless, whether she erred in determining that the mother was suffering from a mental illness, and whether she correctly assessed the risk of psychological and emotional harm to the children if they remained with the mother. The court examined the evidence and the reasoning of the primary judge in light of these issues. It found that the primary judge was justified in her findings regarding the allegations and the mother's mental health, and that she had adequately considered the impact of the change in arrangements on the children.
The appeal was dismissed by the court, which upheld the primary judge's decision that the children should live with the father and that he should have sole parental responsibility. The court also dismissed an application by the father to have the mother declared a vexatious litigant, noting that the conclusion of the appeal would end the litigation. Finally, the court allowed the Independent Children’s Lawyer to file written submissions regarding costs against the mother, with specific timelines for the submissions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the appeal be dismissed.
2.
That all applications in an appeal be dismissed.
3.
That there be no order as to costs as between the appellant and the respondent.
4.
That any application by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for costs against the mother be by way of written submission to be filed and served within 21 days.
5.
That insofar as the Independent Children’s Lawyer files any submission seeking costs against the mother, the mother file her written submissions within 14 days after receipt of those of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
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.