Zlotnik and Gerasimov - [2019] FamCA 806

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZLOTNIK & GERASIMOV

[2019] FamCA 806

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Procedural – Where the father sought an order for the preparation of a report by a family consultant in circumstances where he had chosen not to attend interviews for the preparation of an updating Chapter 15 Expert Report – Where the father’s application for an order for a report by a family consultant is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Mr Zlotnik

RESPONDENT:

Ms Gerasimov

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

503

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

5 November 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Watts J

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Genuine Legal

Orders

Order made 24.10.2019

The father’s oral application for the preparation of a report pursuant to s 62G(2) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) be dismissed.

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 Zlotnik & Gerasimov 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 503 of 2015

Mr Zlotnik

Applicant

And

Ms Gerasimov

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 24 October 2019, the father sought leave to make an oral application for the appointment of a family consultant to prepare a report pursuant to s 62G(2) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). That application was opposed by the mother. I granted the father leave to make the oral application but dismissed the father’s oral application and on a busy list day, reserved my reasons. I now provide those reasons.
The principal proceedings are competing applications for final parenting orders in relation to the child, B born in 2012 (“the child”).
Currently, the child lives with the mother and spends time with the father during school term four nights a fortnight.
Dr E had prepared a report in relation to the child in June 2015.
On 10 October 2018, the mother made an application that an order be made for Dr E to prepare an updating report. The father opposed that order being made.
For reasons given ex tempore on 10 October 2018, orders were made in the following terms:
5.Pursuant to part 15.5 of the Family Law Rules, Dr E be appointed as a single expert to prepare an updating report in relation to the child and that in preparing that report to the Court, the Expert is requested to consider any relevant matter pursuant to s 60CC(2) and (3) Family Law Act, the mental status of each…

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 Zlotnik and Gerasimov

Details

AGLC: Zlotnik and Gerasimov [2019] FamCA 806
Case: [2019] FamCA 806
Decision Date: 5 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Zlotnik and Gerasimov*, heard before Watts J, the father made an oral application for the preparation of a report pursuant to s 62G(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The precise nature of the underlying dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but the application for the report indicates it concerned matters within the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the father's application for the preparation of a report under s 62G(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This provision typically relates to the preparation of independent children's reports in proceedings concerning the welfare of children.

Watts J dismissed the father's oral application. While the specific reasons for dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, the court's decision indicates that the criteria or circumstances for ordering such a report under s 62G(2) were not met on this occasion. The court made its order on 24 October 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order made 24.10.2019

The father’s oral application for the preparation of a report pursuant to s 62G(2) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) be dismissed.

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.