FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – Where the mother seeks to discharge recent parenting orders – Where the parties have previously engaged in lengthy litigation – Where the relationship between the parties is characterised by hostility – Whether the primary judge erred in the application of the principles in Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – Whether existing parenting orders ought to be reconsidered – Whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances to justify reopening the parenting proceedings – Where one of the children suffers severe anxiety – Where the primary judge found that the child’s ongoing anxiety and school refusal does not constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to justify reopening proceedings – Where the primary judge had regard to all affidavits and other documents on the court file – Whether the primary judge denied the mother procedural fairness by not confining his consideration of the matter specifically to the affidavits filed in support of her application – Where the primary judge was entitled to find that, even had the mother established the necessary change in circumstances, it would still not be in the best interests of the children to reopen proceedings and commence protracted litigation – Appeal dismissed.
The appeal against the order of Judge Burchardt made on 24 November 2014 is dismissed.
Within seven (7) days of the date of these orders, the father file and serve any submissions in relation to costs of the appeal. The mother file and serve any submissions in reply to the submissions of the father within seven (7) days of receipt of the father’s submissions.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment…
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 Walter & Walter
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Walter & Walter [2016] FamCAFC 56
Case
[2016] FamCAFC 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Walter & Walter involved a dispute between parents regarding the care and control of a child. The mother sought an order for the child to live with her, while the father opposed this application. The matter was initially heard by Judge Burchardt, who made an order in favour of the mother on 24 November 2014. The father appealed this order, and the appeal was heard by the court.
The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the order made by Judge Burchardt was in the best interests of the child and whether there was any error in the way the judge conducted the hearing or made the order. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties, including expert reports and the child’s wishes, to determine what was in the child’s best interests. The court also had to consider whether the judge’s approach to the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles was correct.
The court found that the order made by Judge Burchardt was in the best interests of the child and that there was no error in the way the judge conducted the hearing or made the order. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that the mother was better able to provide for the child’s needs and ensure their wellbeing. The court also found that the judge’s approach to the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles was correct. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal against the order made by Judge Burchardt. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the appeal, requiring the father to file and serve any submissions in relation to costs within seven days of the date of the orders, and the mother to file and serve any submissions in reply within seven days of receipt of the father’s submissions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal against the order of Judge Burchardt made on 24 November 2014 is dismissed.
2.
Within seven (7) days of the date of these orders, the father file and serve any submissions in relation to costs of the appeal. The mother file and serve any submissions in reply to the submissions of the father within seven (7) days of receipt of the father’s submissions.