FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – where the trial judge permitted the mother to relocate with the three children 63 km away – where the father opposed the move – where the father appealed – where the appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly analyse the children’s current relationships with their parents and the impact of any proposed change to the nature and quality of those relationships – where no error demonstrated – where the appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly analyse the evidence of the family report writer – where no error demonstrated – where the appellant contended that the trial judge made comments critical of the father’s lack of financial support for the children without analysing the evidence – where it was not demonstrated that any such finding had any material impact upon the trial judge’s ultimate findings – where no error demonstrated – where the appeal is dismissed. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – where orders are made for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
The appellant father pay the costs of the respondent mother of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Vontek & Vontek has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA…
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 Vontek v Vontek
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Vontek v Vontek [2017] FamCAFC 28
Case
[2017] FamCAFC 28
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Vontek v Vontek, the parties involved were the father and mother of a child, who were in a dispute regarding the relocation of the child to another state. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The father, the appellant, sought to appeal the primary judge's decision to allow the child's relocation to another state with the mother, the respondent.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the relocation of the child to another state would be in the child's best interests, and whether the father's appeal should be dismissed. The court had to consider a range of factors in determining the child's best interests, including the child's need for stability and continuity, the child's relationship with both parents, and the potential impact of the relocation on the child's education and wellbeing.
The court found that the relocation of the child to another state with the mother was in the child's best interests. The court rejected the father's arguments that the relocation would cause significant harm to the child, and found that the mother had provided sufficient evidence to support her case. The court also found that the father's appeal should be dismissed, and ordered that he pay the costs of the respondent mother of and incidental to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal is dismissed.
2.
The appellant father pay the costs of the respondent mother of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.