Zong & Lim - [2022] FedCFamC2F 196

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Zong & Lim [2022] FedCFamC2F 196

File number(s): BRC 8160 of 2014

Judgment of: JUDGE COATES

Date of judgment: 25 February 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – father lives in City K – mother lives in Brisbane – mother seeks no time order – unacceptable risk.

Legislation: Family Law Act1975, ss. 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 102NA.

Cases cited:
Keane & Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; FLC 91-979

Peterson & Cochrane [2008] FamCA 597

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 152

Date of last submission/s: 11 November 2021

Date of hearing: 28, 29 and 30 September 2021

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms M. Murphy

Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander Solicitors QLD

Respondent: Self-represented

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms D. Pendergast

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Julie Harrington Solicitor
ORDERS

BRC 8160 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS ZONG

Applicant

AND:
MR LIM

Respondent

AND:
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE COATES

DATE OF ORDER:

25 february 2022

THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the mother have sole parental responsibility in respect of all major long term issues of the child, X born in 2012 (“the child”).
2.That the child shall live with the mother.
3.That the child shall spend no time with the father.
4.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 Zong & Lim has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE COATES:

The mother of a nine-year-old girl, X, seeks orders to exercise sole parental responsibility and that the child spend no time with the father.
That is a position supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Their position is based on unacceptable risk.
The father seeks that the child spend school holiday time with him.
He seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility.
His case has changed over time because initially he wanted the child returned from Brisbane to City K where both parties lived and that the child either live with him or spend very significant and substantial time with him.
THE LAW
I will identify for the parents what needs to be taken…

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 Zong & Lim

Details

AGLC: Zong & Lim [2022] FedCFamC2F 196
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned a parenting dispute between the parents of a young child, X, who were separated in 2012. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and that the child spend no time with the father, a position supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The father sought equal shared parental responsibility and time with the child. The court was required to consider the child's best interests and the relevant considerations under the Family Law Act 1975. The court found that the father had engaged in family violence and coercive control, had used the child to pursue the relationship, and had a tenuous relationship with the child. The court also found that the mother's capacity to parent was affected by the father's behaviours, and that the mother would suffer anxiety and fear if she had to have contact with the father. The court concluded that the father's behaviours amounted to an unacceptable risk to the child, and made orders for the child to live with the mother, for the mother to exercise sole parental responsibility and for the child to spend no time with the father. The court discharged the Independent Children's Lawyer.

Orders