Legal Research
Cases
Trayden & Trayden

Trayden & Trayden

Case [2021] FedCFamC2F 285 3 November 2021

Parental Responsibility

Best Interests of the Child

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Trayden & Trayden [2021] FedCFamC2F 285

File number(s): CAC 2262 of 2017

Judgment of: JUDGE W J NEVILLE

Date of judgment: 3 November 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Father’s fixation upon single event at separation and seeking to have his local Church admonish the Mother for her behaviour – Father’s regular intervention with children’s multiple health care providers resulting in some of them refusing to treat the children – children have good and close relationship with both parents – best interests for care of the children’s special health needs for Mother to have sole parental responsibility for them regarding these matters – Orders as sought by the Mother in children’s best interests. Property – Husband treated the property matters very much like a strict accounting exercise – failure to provide or call evidence from paternal Grandmother regarding alleged gift solely to the Husband – Court determined that the gifts were to both parties especially since the funds gifted were used to pay down jointly held mortgages and otherwise put into joint accounts – just and equitable considerations.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CA, 60CC(3)(a) – (m), 65DAA, 75(2), 79(2) & (4)

Cases cited:
AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160

Bevan v Bevan (2013) 279 FLR 1; (2013) 49 Fam LR 387
Chapman & Chapman (2015) 51 Fam LR 176
Fields v Smith (2015) FLC 93-638; (2016) 53 Fam LR 1
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Godfrey v Sanders (2007) 208 FLR 287; [2007] FamCA 102

Gollings & Scott (2007) 37 Fam LR 428

Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212; (2007) 36 Fam LR 422

Hsiao v Fazarri (2020) 94 ALJR 961; (2020) 383 ALR 446; (2020) 61 Fam LR 465

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

M v S (2008) 37 Fam LR 32

McCall v Clark (2009) 41 Fam LR 483

Mabb & Mabb (2020) FLC 93-947

Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

AJO & GRO v AJO & GRO (2005) 33 Fam LR 134

Sempterton v Semperton (2012) 47 Fam LR 626

Sigley v Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238

Vass v Vass (2016) 53 Fam LR 373

Welch & Abney (2016) FLC 93-756

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 190

Date of last submission/s: 14 June 2021

Date of hearing: 29 & 20 October 2020

Place: Canberra

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mazengarb Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Wong

Solicitor for the Respondent: Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Howard

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid ACT
ORDERS

CAC 2262 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR TRAYDEN

Applicant

AND:
MS TRAYDEN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE W J NEVILLE

DATE OF ORDER:

3 NOVEMBER 2021

ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT…

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 Trayden & Trayden

Details

AGLC: Trayden & Trayden [2021] FedCFamC2F 285
Case: [2021] FedCFamC2F 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a lengthy and contentious dispute between Trayden and Trayden regarding the division of their property and the care of their two children. The case had been before the Family Court since 2017. The court found that the parties had equal shared parental responsibility for the children, except in relation to the children's health, where the mother had sole parental responsibility. The court found that the father's regular interventions with the children's multiple health care providers resulted in some of them refusing to treat the children. The court found that the children had a good and close relationship with both parents and that it was in their best interests for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for them regarding their special health needs. The court also found that the husband's fixation on a single event at separation and his attempts to have his local Church admonish the mother for her behaviour were not relevant to the best interests of the children. The court found that the husband's regular intervention with the children's multiple health care providers resulted in some of them refusing to treat the children. The court found that the children had a good and close relationship with both parents and that it was in their best interests for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for them regarding their special health needs. In relation to property, the court found that the gifts from the husband's parents were to both parties and not solely to the husband as he had claimed. The court found that a just and equitable division of the parties' property was 60% in the wife's favour, and 40% to the husband.

Orders