Walden & Cooper

[2020] FamCA 104

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALDEN & COOPER [2020] FamCA 104

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Rice & Asplund threshold issue – Where final parenting orders were made in August 2018 – Where the father seeks to re-contest parenting orders on the basis of changed circumstances – Where the mother denied any material change of circumstances and applied to have the father’s application dismissed – Where the father seeks greater flexibility due to the uncertainty of his monthly work roster – Where the father asserted the requisite change of circumstances is evident from the current orders not being implemented in the manner expected or intended – Where there has been no change to the way in which the father’s work rosters are compiled – Where the dispute over whether predictability or flexibility should define the children’s time with the father was squarely confronted at the original hearing – Concluded that the children are spending time with the father as expected under the current orders – Concluded the father failed to demonstrate any sufficient material change in circumstances to warrant revision of the existing orders – Ordered the father’s application be dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D

Langmeil & Grange [2013] FamCAFC 31
Marsden v Winch (2009) 42 Fam LR 1; [2009] FamCAFC 152
Miller & Harrington (2008) FLC 93-383; [2008] FamCAFC 150
Poisat & Poisat (2014) FLC 93-597; [2014] FamCAFC 128
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725; [1978] FamCA 84
Searson & Searson (2017) FLC 93-788; [2017] FamCAFC 119
SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93-363; [2008] FamCAFC 16
Walden & Cooper [2018] FamCA 595

APPLICANT: Mr Walden

RESPONDENT: Ms Cooper

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5366 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 25 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

HEARING DATE: 10 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Lloyd SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Levick

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Boyd Olsen Lawyers

Orders

1. The applicant father’s application for Orders 1 to 10 inclusive, sought under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in the Further Further Amended Initiating Application [sic] filed on 30 January 2020 is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved for 28 days.

3. Any costs application referred to in Orders 3 or 11 made on 23 October 2019 is reserved for 28 days.

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 Walden & Cooper 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: SYC…