Watton & Watton - [2024] FedCFamC2F 727

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Watton & Watton [2024] FedCFamC2F 727

File number(s): DGC 3852 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS

Date of judgment: 11 June 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTNG – Rice v Asplund – as now codified in the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) s 65DAAA – final orders in August 2022 – father having no time with children – significant mental health issues – drug use – family violence – father’s failure to obtain treatment – lack of insight – father’s regular attendance upon two psychologists and a psychiatrist – completion of lengthy Men’s Behavioural Change Program and provision of multiple clean hair follicle tests – demonstration of insight – significant change of circumstances – best interests of children for final orders to be reconsidered

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 65DAAA

Cases cited:
Albert & Plowman [2022] FedCFamC1F 243

Watton & Watton [2022] FedCFamC2F 1095

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Walden & Cooper [2020] FamCA 104

Walter & Walter [2016] FamCAFC 56

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 66

Date of last submission/s: 27 May 2024

Date of hearing: 27 May 2024

Place: Dandenong - via Microsoft Teams

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr North SC

Solicitor for the Applicant: Phaedonos Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms O’Connell

Solicitor for the Respondent: Fiona McGregor Family Lawyer Pty Ltd
ORDERS

DGC 3852 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR WATTON

Applicant

AND:
MS WATTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

11 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Court is satisfied that, in all of the circumstances, there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made and that it is in the best interests of the children for the final parenting order to be reconsidered.
2.The matter be listed for further case management before a Judicial Registrar on a date to be advised.

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 JENKINS:

This matter comes before me as an application by the father pursuant to what was…

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 Watton & Watton

Details

AGLC: Watton & Watton [2024] FedCFamC2F 727
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 727
Decision Date: 11 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the matter of Watton & Watton was brought before Judge Jenkins. Mr Watton, the applicant, sought a reconsideration of final parenting orders made in August 2022, which resulted in him having no time with the children. The dispute centred around significant changes in circumstances, particularly in relation to Mr Watton's mental health issues and drug use, and his failure to obtain treatment. The court had to decide whether these changes warranted a reconsideration of the final parenting order under section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The legal issue before the court was whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the final parenting order was made and if it was in the best interests of the children for the order to be reconsidered. Mr Watton argued that he had demonstrated significant changes in his circumstances, including regular attendance with psychologists and a psychiatrist, completion of a Men’s Behavioural Change Program, and multiple clean hair follicle tests. He also claimed to have gained insight into his issues. The court needed to weigh these developments against the background of family violence and the father's previous lack of insight.

Judge Jenkins concluded that there had been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made. The father's regular attendance with health professionals, completion of behavioural programs, and clean drug tests indicated a significant change in his circumstances. The court found that this change warranted a reconsideration of the final parenting order to ensure it was in the best interests of the children. The matter was to be listed for further case management before a Judicial Registrar to determine the next steps.

The court ordered that the matter be listed for further case management to explore the possibility of modifying the final parenting order in light of the father's demonstrated changes. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court’s records, and any minor typographical or grammatical errors could be reviewed or varied as per the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

DGC 3852 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR WATTON

Applicant

AND:

MS WATTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

11 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Court is satisfied that, in all of the circumstances, there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made and that it is in the best interests of the children for the final parenting order to be reconsidered.

2. The matter be listed for further case management before a Judicial Registrar on a date to be advised.

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):	DGC 3852 of 2023
Judgment of:	JUDGE JENKINS
Date of judgment:	11 June 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTNG – Rice v Asplund – as now codified in the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) s 65DAAA – final orders in August 2022 – father having no time with children – significant mental health issues – drug use – family violence – father’s failure to obtain treatment – lack of insight – father’s regular attendance upon two psychologists and a psychiatrist – completion of lengthy Men’s Behavioural Change Program and provision of multiple clean hair follicle tests – demonstration of insight – significant change of circumstances – best interests of children for final orders to be reconsidered
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 65DAAA
Cases cited:	Albert & Plowman [2022] FedCFamC1F 243 Watton & Watton [2022] FedCFamC2F 1095 Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 Walden & Cooper [2020] FamCA 104 Walter & Walter [2016] FamCAFC 56
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	66
Date of last submission/s:	27 May 2024
Date of hearing:	27 May 2024
Place:	Dandenong - via Microsoft Teams
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr North SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Phaedonos Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms O’Connell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Fiona McGregor Family Lawyer Pty Ltd

DGC 3852 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR WATTON Applicant
AND:	MS WATTON Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JUNE 2024