- Family Law
- Lawyers & Staff
- Cases & Articles
- Contact Us
NOTICE ALERT IN LIGHT OF COVID-19
WHAT WE PROPOSE AND HOW WE CAN ASSIST
At Watson & Watson our clients come first. Please be assured of our continued dedicated services to all current and new clients.
As we have done in the past, we will continue to offer alternative conferencing methods ie video conferencing, skype or telephone conferences. Reviewing of all documentation provided to us prior to any initial conference will be all inclusive of our set fee. Do not hesitate to contact Shereen Da Gloria on (02) 9221 6011 should you have any concerns.
In a recent decision by the Full Court of the Family Court (the Full Court) in Bangi and Belov (2017), a father’s appeal against a decision made by the trial Judge was allowed in circumstances where the Full Court decided that the trial Judge had given insufficient consideration to the mother’s conduct toward the child, namely, exposing the child to family violence.
This was a parenting case involving a 10 year old child. The mother and the father each sought orders that the child live with them. After hearing the case, the trial Judge ultimately ordered (amongst other things) that the child live with the mother and spend time with the father for 5 nights a fortnight. This was in circumstances where the Judge had made findings which were not in favour of the mother including findings that:
Moreover, the Judge had rejected the mother’s claims of violence by the father.
However notwithstanding all of this, the Judge believed that it was still in the child’s best interests to live with the mother as to remove the child from the mother would be traumatic to the child.
The father appealed on the basis that the Judge’s decision was inconsistent with his findings as to the mother’s parenting capacity, and that the decision was not supported buy the evidence.
The father further submitted that the report of the Family Consultant (which found in favour of the mother as being the primary attachment figure) was questionable as it transpired that the Family Consultant did not have all the evidence before him and had submitted a Report without due consideration of all of the evidence when preparing his report.
In broad terms, the Full Court of the Family Court decided that:
When the Full Court of the Family Court considered the appeal, it found the trial Judge gave significant credence to the Report of the Family Consultant despite the fact that the Family Consultant was not aware of all of the evidence and consequently did not consider all of the evidence.
The Full Court of the Family Court decided in favour of the father and the father’s appeal was allowed.
Please do not hesitate to contact Richard Watson our family lawyer or Shereen Da Gloria his assistant should you be faced with a similar situation and are unsure of a way forward.
Personal Experienced Professional Affordable
Phone 02 9221 6011Send us your enquiry