Worth and Price and Anor - [2016] FamCA 1015

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WORTH & PRICE & ANOR

[2016] FamCA 1015

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where second respondent is the paternal grandmother – Where the mother and father have failed to participate in the proceedings – Where the father is incarcerated – Where the mother has mental health issues – Where consideration of best interests principles as to the subject child – Where Order for the second respondent to have sole parental responsibility for the child – Order for the child to reside with the second respondent.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Aldridge & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 229
Donnell & Dovey [2010] FamCAFC 15
Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4
Potts & Bims [2007] FamCA 394
Valentine & Lacerra and Anor [2013] FamCAFC 53
Yamada & Cain [2013] FamCAFC 64

APPLICANT:

Mr Worth

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Price

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms Worth

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mark MacDiarmid

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5419

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

25 November 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2016

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT – SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT:

No appearance

FIRST RESPONDENT – SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT:

No appearance

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms Hawkes of Neil Jones Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr MacDiarmid of Mark MacDiarmid Family Law Specialist

Orders

That the second respondent paternal grandmother Ms Worth have sole parental responsibility for the child B born … 2012.
That the child B born … 2012 live with the second respondent paternal grandmother.

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 Worth & Price and Anor 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

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5419 of 2014

Mr Worth

Applicant

And

Ms Price

First Respondent

And

Ms Worth

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are parenting proceedings concerning the child B born in 2012.

Context

The applicant father is aged 27. The first respondent mother is aged 24. The second respondent grandmother is aged 49.
The parents separated in July or August 2013.
The applicant father filed an urgent Initiating Application in this Court on 22 October 2014 seeking inter alia a recovery order for the return of the child to his care and orders that he have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with him. Those orders were made.
A Response to the Initiating Application was filed on 29…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Worth and Price and Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FamCA 1015
Decision Date: 25 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Foster J, considered a dispute concerning the parental responsibility and living arrangements for a child, B. The parties involved were the child's paternal grandmother, Ms Worth (the second respondent), and presumably the child's parents, although their specific roles as applicants or respondents are not detailed in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolved around determining who should have sole parental responsibility for B and where B should live.

The central legal issues before the Court were to determine: (1) who should have sole parental responsibility for the child B; and (2) with whom the child B should live. These determinations are fundamental to the welfare and best interests of the child, which is the paramount consideration in all family law matters concerning children in Australia.

In reaching its decision, the Court ordered that the second respondent, Ms Worth, the child's paternal grandmother, be granted sole parental responsibility for B. Furthermore, the Court ordered that B live with Ms Worth. While the specific reasoning behind these orders is not elaborated in the provided text, the outcome clearly indicates that the Court found it to be in the child's best interests for the paternal grandmother to have both the ultimate decision-making authority and the primary residence of the child.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the second respondent paternal grandmother Ms Worth have sole parental responsibility for the child B born … 2012.

That the child B born … 2012 live with the second respondent paternal grandmother.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.