Ullman and Weaver - [2012] FMCAfam 871

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ULLMAN & WEAVER

[2012] FMCAfam 871

FAMILY LAW – Final parenting arrangements for child aged six – presumption of equal shared parental responsibility – parties currently have poor and mistrustful parenting relationship – best interests – what is reasonable practicable arrangement for child – equal time arrangement – substantial and significant time arrangement – which school should child attend – meaningful parental relationship – section 60CC factors.

Family Law Act 1975(Cth), ss.4, 60B, 60CA, 60CC; 61DA; 65DAA, 65DAC, 65DAE

MRR v GR [2010] HCA4
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Godfrey v Saunders 208 FLR 287
Eden & Eden-Proust [2011] Fam CAFC 138
AMF v AIF (1999) FLC 92-852

Applicant:

MS ULLMAN

Respondent:

MR WEAVER

File Number:

ADC 2605 of 2011

Judgment of:

Brown FM

Hearing dates:

23, 24 April 18 & 19 July 2012

Date of Last Submission:

19 July 2012

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

30 August 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Basheer

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Georgiadis Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

In person

ORDERS

The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the marriage X born (omitted) 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the child”).
In the exercise of this equal shared parental responsibility for the child the parties are to consult with each other in respect of all major long term decisions pertaining to the child, which include but are not limited to issues concerning the following:
(a)The child’s education (both current and future);
(b)The child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)The child’s health and special needs;
(d)The child’s names; and
(e)Any changes to the child’s living arrangements which significantly interferes with the operation of these orders, particularly with the specified arrangements for the child to spend time with each parent.
In the event the parties are unable to come to a joint decision about any major long term issue pertaining to the child they are to jointly consult with a family dispute resolution practitioner as defined by section 10G of the Family Law Act1975 and seek the assistance of such family dispute resolution practitioner to come to a joint decision about the major long term issue pertaining to the child in dispute between them.
The mother and father shall:
(a)Keep the other parent informed at all times of his/her residential address and contact details, including mobile and landline telephone numbers and email address;
(b)Keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other allied health practitioner who treats the child and authorise such practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they (the applicable medical or other allied health practitioners) are lawfully able to provide about the child; and
(c)Inform the other parent as soon as is reasonably practical of any medical issue, significant health issue or significant illness or injury suffered by the child. This order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release details of the child’s medical condition and/or injury to the other parent.
The…

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 Ullman and Weaver

Details

AGLC: Ullman and Weaver [2012] FMCAfam 871
Case: [2012] FMCAfam 871
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ullman and Weaver the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia was required to determine final parenting arrangements for the child of the marriage, X, born in 2006. The case was complex, given the parties' polarised positions and their poor and mistrustful relationship. The Court was required to consider the legal principles applicable to parenting disputes, the evidence presented by the parties, and the best interests of the child. The Court considered the primary considerations of the child's need for a meaningful relationship with both parents and protection from harm, as well as the additional considerations set out in section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975. The Court also considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, the allocation of parental responsibility, and the practicality of equal time and substantial and significant time arrangements. The Court found that it was in the best interests of X for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility, but that it was not reasonably practicable for X to spend equal or substantial and significant time with the father. The Court ordered that X live with the mother in the Adelaide metropolitan area, spend time with the father during school terms and on alternate weekends, and for one half of each school holiday in each year. The Court also ordered that X attend the same primary school, which was near the father's home, and that the parties consult with each other in respect of major long-term decisions pertaining to X. The Court's decision aimed to provide stability and continuity in arrangements for X's care, given the fraught nature of the relationship between the parents.

Orders