Vernon & Vernon - [2025] FedCFamC2F 497

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Vernon & Vernon [2025] FedCFamC2F 497

File number(s): SYC 3591 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE COLQUHOUN

Date of judgment: 17 April 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – jurisdiction – children reside in Country B – habitual residence

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt XIIIAA, Div 4, s 69E, 111CC, 111CD

Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996)

Cases cited:
Ahmad & Hadi [2020] FamCA 1041

Bajek & Bajek [2024] FedCFamC1F 466

Bunyon & Lewis (No 3) [2013] FamCA 888

Jasvir and Atwal [2023] FCWA 222

State Central Authority & Spring-Ernst (No 2) [2013] FamCA 906

Sun & Long [2019] FamCA 3

Yaling & Tsen (2022) 65 Fam LR 437

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 46

Date of hearing: 14 April 2025

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Reid (Direct Brief)

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Montgomery of Farrar Gesini Dunn (as amicus curiae)
ORDERS

SYC 3591 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR VERNON

Applicant

AND:
MS VERNON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE COLQUHOUN

DATE OF ORDER:

17 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS THAT:
1.The father’s application in a proceeding filed on 20 February 2025 is dismissed.
2.All outstanding applications are dismissed including the application for final orders sealed on 15 May 2024.
3.All previous parenting orders shall be discharged.
4.There be no order as to costs.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Pursuant to s 111CD(1)(e) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) should not determine the father's parenting application.
B.The father will need to file a new application if he wishes to seek orders in this Court in respect of property adjustment.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE COLQUHOUN:

These proceedings concern the parenting arrangements for X (“X”), currently aged 12, and Y (“Y”), currently aged 10. X and Y's parents are the applicant father Mr Vernon ("the father”) and the mother Ms Vernon ("the mother"). The father was represented by Counsel, Ms Reid. 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 Vernon & Vernon

Details

AGLC: Vernon & Vernon [2025] FedCFamC2F 497
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 497
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vernon & Vernon involved a dispute between Mr Vernon, the applicant, and Ms Vernon, the respondent, concerning parenting arrangements for their children who reside in Country B. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 2. Mr Vernon sought various parenting orders, including a final determination of the residence of the children. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to make the parenting orders sought by Mr Vernon, given that the children resided in Country B. The court needed to consider the implications of section 111CD(1)(e) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which restricts the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit and Family Court to make orders concerning children who do not reside in Australia.

Judge Colquhoun concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction to make the parenting orders sought by Mr Vernon. The court found that the children's habitual residence was in Country B, and therefore, the court could not exercise jurisdiction over the matter. The court dismissed Mr Vernon's application for final parenting orders and noted that any future application regarding the children would need to be made in the courts of Country B. The court also discharged all previous parenting orders and dismissed all outstanding applications. The court did not make any order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 3591 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR VERNON

Applicant

AND:

MS VERNON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE COLQUHOUN

DATE OF ORDER:

17 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS THAT:

1. The father’s application in a proceeding filed on 20 February 2025 is dismissed.

2. All outstanding applications are dismissed including the application for final orders sealed on 15 May 2024.

3. All previous parenting orders shall be discharged.

4. There be no order as to costs.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. Pursuant to s 111CD(1)(e) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) should not determine the father's parenting application.

B. The father will need to file a new application if he wishes to seek orders in this Court in respect of property adjustment.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	SYC 3591 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE COLQUHOUN
Date of judgment:	17 April 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting – jurisdiction – children reside in Country B – habitual residence
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt XIIIAA, Div 4, s 69E, 111CC, 111CD Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996)
Cases cited:	Ahmad & Hadi [2020] FamCA 1041 Bajek & Bajek [2024] FedCFamC1F 466 Bunyon & Lewis (No 3) [2013] FamCA 888 Jasvir and Atwal [2023] FCWA 222 State Central Authority & Spring-Ernst (No 2) [2013] FamCA 906 Sun & Long [2019] FamCA 3 Yaling & Tsen (2022) 65 Fam LR 437
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	46
Date of hearing:	14 April 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Reid (Direct Brief)
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Montgomery of Farrar Gesini Dunn (as amicus curiae)

SYC 3591 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR VERNON Applicant
AND:	MS VERNON Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE COLQUHOUN
DATE OF ORDER:	17 APRIL 2025