Family Court of Australia
Hume & Verize  FamCA 439 (9 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where there has been 21 months of supervised time between the child and the father – where the father seeks to move to unsupervised time – where the mother contends that supervised time ought to continue – consideration of risk – orders made for unsupervised time to commence.
Jardine & Sackville  FamCA 458 (8 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER – Bias – Where the father makes an oral application for the discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the re-appointment of another – Where the father believes the current Independent Children’s Lawyer lacks impartiality – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s bias is not established just because the father believes it to be so – Where discharging the current Independent Children’s Lawyer would cause further delay and additional cost – Application dismissed.
Williams & Hatheway (No. 2)  FamCA 435 (5 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought costs from the parties in the substantive proceedings – Where the mother was ordered to pay half the costs – Where the father was permitted to submit an application to waive the fees of the Independent Children’s Lawyer to the Legal Aid Commission of NSW – Where that application was refused – Where the father has not provided any further financial information – Where the father was found to be employed in the substantive proceedings – Order for costs.
Gulizar & Gulizar  FamCA 419 (4 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility and with whom the children live – Where there are four children of various ages – Where the father seeks that he and the mother have equal shared parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Where the parents have poor communication – Where it is not practicable for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility – Where it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to have sole parental responsibility – Order made – With whom the children live – Where the father seeks that the two younger children live with him – Where there are serious allegations of family violence made against the father by all of the children – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Department of Family and Community Services agree that the two younger children should live with the mother – Order made for all of the children to live with the mother – Orders made for the elder two children to communicate or spend time with their father only in accordance with their wishes – Orders made for the two younger children to communicate or spend time with the father under such conditions as agreed by the parents in writing.FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought an order for costs from each party in equal shares – Where the mother did not consent to the orders insofar as they were sought against her – Where the father did not oppose the application for costs insofar as they were sought against him – Where there was little evidence before the Court about the mother’s financial circumstances – Where the mother has been out of paid work for many years – Order made for the father to pay half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – No order for costs made against the mother.
Horner & Horner  FamCA 410 (2 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether the child should live with the mother or the father – Where family violence – Where ongoing parental conflict – Where both parents have personality vulnerabilities – Where the mother’s household poses a risk that she will deny the child a relationship with the father – Whether the father would facilitate a relationship between the mother and the child if the child was in his care – Where the child’s primary attachment is with the mother – Where a sudden change from the mother to the father’s care guarantee’s the child will suffer loss and grief – Order that the child lives with the mother – Order that the child spend time and communicate with the father as proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Federal Circuit Court of Australia
O’Donnell & Downing (No.2)  FCCA 2380 (30 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Child aged 9 – second round of litigation – where there have been ongoing difficulties with the child spending time with the father and following the religion the parties agreed she should follow since the parties separated five years ago – where the child is caught in a clash between cultures and religions – where the father’s inability to contain his anger about the mother’s conduct is impacting on his relationship with the child – where the only way to relieve pressure on the child is to make an order that the mother have sole parental responsibility for her and that her name be placed on the Watch list until she is 18.
Tenney & Stiles  FCCA 2194 (30 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Father seeking an order that a child aged 7 live with him – where the child has always lived with her mother and has siblings in that household – where the father was violent to the mother during and after their relationship – where the mother has since had two problematic relationships which have exposed the child to risk of harm – where the father of mother’s youngest child was in jail at time of hearing but was about to be released – where that father has an extensive criminal record and has been using ice – where there is considerable doubt about whether the mother will be able to end that relationship even if willing to do so – where if that relationship ends there is a high risk of the mother re-partnering with another unsatisfactory individual – where the father has not done a perpetrator’s course but has indicated a willingness to do so – where the court is faced with an unpalatable choice but where the safest option for the child at present is to live with her father.