VR & RR

[2002] FamCA 320

[2002] FamCA 320

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FULL COURT       
OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA                Appeal No EA 117 of 2001
AT SYDNEY  File No SY 3160 of 2001

BETWEEN:

VR
Appellant Husband
- and -

RR
Respondent Wife

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE FULL COURT

CORAM:  KAY, COLEMAN & WARNICK JJ
DATE OF HEARING:                 15 April 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:             15 May 2002

APPEARANCES:  Mr Grieve, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel, with Mr Hodgson of Counsel, instructed by, Broun Abrahams, Lawyers, DX 11551, Sydney Downtown, appeared on behalf of the Appellant Husband.

Mr Brereton of Senior Counsel, instructed by Barkus Edwards Doolan, Lawyers, DX 11561, Sydney Downtown, appeared on behalf of the Respondent Wife.

VR v RR
EA 117 of 2001
Coram:                    Kay, Coleman & Warnick JJ
Date of hearing:     15 April 2002
Date of judgment:  15 May 2002

CHILDREN – Parenting orders – conditions – whether proper to make order under section 65E of the Family Law Act restricting a parent without evidence of detriment to child’s welfare

[NB – This a shortened version of the full judgment delivered to the parties – it contains only material necessary to deal with the more important issues raised in the proceedings]

The parties were married and lived in the UK. After separation the mother returned to Australia with the children of the marriage.

Before the mother left the UK consent orders were made in the Family Division of the County Court in the UK providing for

• the children to reside with the mother; and

• the father to have regular contact for one half of the children’s school holidays, with no more than 2 trips per annum requiring a one-way journey of more than 13 hours.

Disputes arose over the frequency and duration of contact. The father wanted to increase his holiday time with the children. The mother wanted to restrict him to one trip to the UK, one trip within 8 hours of Sydney and generous contact within Australia/NZ. She argued that the children suffered badly from jet lag. She also argued that the father’s trips to France and Switzerland gave the children a false sense of values. 

Steele J  ordered (inter alia)

• That the father be allowed one trip to the UK each year (21 days duration),

• one school holiday contact period may occur within an 8-hour flight time radius of Sydney.

• Other vacation contact is to be exercised in either Australia or New Zealand.

The father appealed, seeking to have contact with the children

(a)     for 28 days (plus travelling time) during the children’s Christmas holiday;

(b)     for 20 days (plus travelling time) during the children’s mid-year holiday; and

(c)     for one half of the aggregate of all other school holiday periods;

and seeking to exercise contact overseas during two of those occasions each year without any geographic or travelling time limitations, and anywhere within a 13 hour flight from Sydney on all other occasions.

Held: in allowing the appeal in part and re-exercising discretion