Zuen & Lhao

The mother, Zuen, appealed against parenting orders made in the Family Court of Australia, which required their teenaged child to live with the father, Lhao. The central issue at trial was the allegation of family violence by the mother, which was generally denied by the father. The mother argued that the primary judge failed to adequately address her evidence and did not properly consider the expert evidence on the risk of psychological harm to the child in the father's care. The mother also contended that the primary judge did not sufficiently engage with the child and the Independent Children's Lawyer.

The court determined that the primary judge's reasons for the parenting orders were inadequate, as they did not clearly indicate whether the judge accepted or rejected the mother's evidence of family violence. The court also found that the judge did not adequately consider the expert evidence on the risk of psychological harm to the child in the father's care and did not properly engage with the child and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court held that the best interests of the child is a comparative evaluation and the relevant considerations must be properly weighed and articulated in the reasons. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge of the Family Court of Australia.

The court further determined that the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer were entitled to costs certificates for the appeal under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The court also granted costs certificates to all parties for the rehearing under the same Act. The form of the orders is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.