TEAGUE and SHAWCROSS - [2014] FCWA 10

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: TEAGUE and SHAWCROSS [2014] FCWA 10

CORAM: WALTERS J

HEARD: 14-20 JANUARY 2014

DELIVERED : 17 FEBRUARY 2014

FILE NO/S: PTW 6915 of 2006

BETWEEN: TEAGUE
Applicant Wife
AND
SHAWCROSS
Respondent Husband

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where child has spent equal time with parents for 7 years – Where child is about to commence secondary school – Where parents live in suburbs far removed from each other – Where child does not want shared care arrangement to continue – Where both parents acknowledge that shared care arrangement cannot continue – Orders made for child to live with mother and spend substantial and significant time with father

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997(WA), Pt v, ss 66, s 66A, 66C70A, 70DA, s 89, s 89AA
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VII, s 61DA, s 64B, s 65DAA

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self Represented Litigant
Respondent: Ms R Reader

Solicitors:

Applicant:
Respondent: Reader Lawyers & Mediators

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Champness & Hanson (2009) FamCAFC 96
Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53
Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Hungerford & Tank [2007] FamCA 637
Jets & Maker (No 2) [2011] FMCAfam 1473
M & S (2006) FamCA 1408
Marsden & Winch (No 3) [2007] FamCA 1364
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
McLeay (1996) FLC 92-667
Mills & Watson (2008) 39 Fam LR 52
MRR v GR (2010) FLC 93-424
Pender & Haywood [2007] FamCA 1526
Re F – Litigants in Person Guidelines [2001] FLC 93-072
Saxena (2006) FLC 93-268
Sealey & Archer [2008] FamCAFC 142
Taylor & Barker (2007) FamCA 1246

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

Introduction and background

1This case is about the living arrangements for a 13-year-old girl. Her name is [M]. Her parents separated at least seven or eight years ago. For the vast majority of that period, M has lived in a shared care arrangement, spending alternate weeks with each parent. Initially, M's parents lived close to each other, but that is no longer the case. They now live in suburbs of Perth that are far removed from each other. For the last two years, M's parents persevered with the shared care arrangement. They did so because they did not want to remove M from the Primary School that she had been attending. She is now due to commence her secondary education, and both parents recognise that the shared care arrangement can no longer continue. M, too, recognises that the shared care arrangement cannot continue. Indeed, she wants it to end.
2M's mother proposes that M should live with her and her husband in their home in [Suburb B] and attend [High School D]. M's older brother, who is 17, lives primarily with M's mother and stepfather.
3M's father proposes that M should live with him and his partner in their rented accommodation…

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 TEAGUE and SHAWCROSS

Details

AGLC: TEAGUE and SHAWCROSS [2014] FCWA 10
Case: [2014] FCWA 10
Decision Date: 17 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Teague and Shawcross involved a dispute regarding the parenting arrangement for a child who had spent an equal amount of time with both parents for the past seven years. The child was about to commence secondary school, and the parents lived in suburbs that were geographically distant from each other. The child expressed a desire for the shared care arrangement to end, and both parents recognised that this arrangement could no longer be sustained. The court was tasked with determining the most appropriate parenting arrangement for the child moving forward.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the shared care arrangement, which had been in place for seven years, should continue, especially given the child's impending entry into secondary school and the significant geographical distance between the parents' residences. Another key consideration was the child's expressed wish to cease the shared care arrangement, along with the parents' mutual acknowledgment that this arrangement was no longer viable. The court had to weigh these factors to determine the best interests of the child.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the extensive period the child had spent in a shared care arrangement, the child's desire for a change, and the practical difficulties posed by the distance between the parents' homes. The court concluded that the child's preference and the parents' agreement that the shared care arrangement could not continue were significant factors. The court ordered that the child would live with the mother but would spend substantial and significant time with the father, recognising the importance of maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents.

The final orders of the court mandated that the child would reside with the mother, with the father having substantial and significant time with the child. This arrangement aimed to balance the child's need for stability and continuity, particularly as they entered secondary school, while also ensuring the child maintained a strong relationship with the father. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the child's wishes and the practical realities of the parents' living situations in determining the most appropriate parenting arrangement.

Orders