Vanzin & Vanzin

Vanzin & Vanzin involved an appeal from an interim judgment concerning children. The father appealed against an interim judgment made by Judge Howard on 23 October 2014. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge had properly considered the statutory provisions and principles applicable to interim proceedings in family law, specifically the requirements of section 60CC of the Family Law Act and the presumption under section 61DA. The father argued that the trial judge did not adequately consider these provisions and had made orders based on the least contested evidence available.

The court examined whether the trial judge had properly considered the legislative wording in section 60CC, which requires the court to consider the best interests of the child in making parenting orders. The court noted that while the trial judge's reasons were brief, they implicitly considered the interests of the child and the evidence before the court. The court also considered whether the trial judge had properly observed the principles applicable to interim proceedings, as well as the presumption under section 61DA. The court concluded that the trial judge's reasons, although brief, sufficiently demonstrated consideration of the child’s interests and the evidence.

In dismissing the appeal, the court emphasised that interim proceedings do not obviate the need to consider the statutory considerations and provide adequate reasons. The court further observed that section 65DAA(6) applied to a shared parenting agreement made by consent, as argued by the father. The court held that the trial judge's reasons, though brief, were sufficient and that the appeal was dismissed. The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the appeal, in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties or assessed if no agreement is reached.