Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1)
Dansey & Dansey (No 7) [2024] FedCFamC1F 455 (10 July 2024)
COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer brought an application for costs – Where the parties opposed the application on the basis that it would cause financial hardship – Where the Court finds that both parties would suffer from financial hardship if a costs order was made – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s application for costs is dismissed.
Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice & Laurenz [2024] FedCFamC1F 503 (29 July 2024)
HAGUE CONVENTION – Child abduction – Return application to New Zealand – Where there is an allegation of wrongful removal – Where the respondent did not participate in the proceedings – Where the requesting parent has committed family violence against the respondent – Where the requesting parent has a history of mental health issues and drug use – Regulatory exceptions to return raised by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Uncertainty as to the circumstances that await the children if a return order were made – Finding as to grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the children in an intolerable situation – Grave risk of harm cannot be adequately ameliorated by available protective measures – Discretion to return not exercised – Application dismissed
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 2)
Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660 (14 June 2024)
PARENTING – long history of litigation between parties – expert psychologist described the contest between the parties as one of the highest levels of conflict he has seen and, in turn, the flow-on effects for the two children as one of the worst – findings by the Court against the Father of ongoing, relentless coercive and controlling behaviour – clear power imbalance between the parties due to age and current and former workplace positions – clear stalking behaviour by the Father including rummaging through the Mother’s re-cycle bins looking for “evidence” together with threats of more action against her in the future – Mother’s older estranged daughter from an earlier relationship weaponised against the Mother by the Father – police used in a form of harassment of the Mother in doing regular welfare checks one of which resulted in the Mother being charged with assault in relation to one of the children, and incarcerated overnight, yet these charges were later either not pressed or dismissed following findings adverse to the Father – Father made complaints to the Mother’s workplace that resulted in investigations against her but without any adverse findings – Mother and children in need of protection and “safe haven” from the Father’s relentless pursuit of them, including by the very regular filing of Applications in this Court – best interests and protective considerations require the children to live with their Mother who shall have sole parental responsibility and spend no time with the Father.
Radecki & Radecki [2024] FedCFamC2F 811 (27 June 2024)
PARENTING – Father’s Application pursuant to s65DAAA to re-visit Final Orders made on an undefended basis in December 2015 when the child was two years old – long history of the Mother facilitating additional time between Father and son – Mother contends that the Father has been inconsistent and unreliable in spending overnight time with the child – while Father acknowledges a significant history of alcohol abuse but nothing in the last 18 months or thereabouts, no details were provided by the Father, whereas the Mother provided subpoenaed police records which show a very significant history of the Father being intoxicated, becoming physically aggressive and various assaults including significant dysregulation in engagements with his family – consideration of significant body of case law regarding Rice & Asplund in the light of statutory codification of the principle from that case – a form of codification of judicial discretion – Father brought no Application to vary or discharge the 2015 Orders until July 2023 – Father’s Application dismissed.
Eastling & Pariser [2024] FedCFamC2F 815 (27 June 2024)
PARENTING – three children, aged 14 and twins aged ten – mother’s application to relocate the children from Melbourne to regional Queensland – father’s primary application for the children to remain living in Melbourne and gradually transition to a week about arrangement – children currently spending time with father three nights per fortnight – allegations of multiple instances of family violence perpetrated against the mother and the children – blanket denials made by father – findings made – mother diagnosed with PTSD – expert evidence given by each party’s psychologist and the mother’s psychiatrist – mother experiencing emotional and physical dysregulation when required to communicate with the father – father lacking insight and minimising the impact of his behaviours – one child experiencing behavioural problems – one child experiencing learning difficulties – children having a loving relationship with both parents – mother having purchased property in Queensland to establish a business with her new partner – mother’s proposal for children to spend time with the father almost monthly in Melbourne, at her cost – significant delays in neuropsychological assessment of a child due to parental disagreement – held – relocation permitted – spend time with the father in accordance with his proposed secondary position – the mother make sole decisions with respect medical assessment and treatment – the parties to otherwise make joint decisions.
Bruin & Bruin (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2F 870 (8 July 2024)
PARENTING – mother’s application to reopen parenting proceedings within 3 weeks of final orders met with responsive application for harmful proceedings orders pursuant to s102QAC – consideration of alleged financial and emotional forms of harm, history of instituting and conduct in child-related proceedings and cumulative or potential cumulative effect of resultant harm – reasonable grounds to believe that the father would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings against him and that the children would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings against him – harmful proceedings orders made.
COSTS – where one parent commenced these proceedings and the other parent continued them – consideration of relevant factors – respective costs applications dismissed.