Tag Archives: family law

Sperm Donor Father Wins Sole Parental Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

A father who was essentially a sperm donor has won sole parental responsibility in relation to his child’s education. Additionally, the child is to live with him and spend regular time with her mother, namely three weekends of the month and one weeknight each fortnight.

While the father was considered a sperm donor by both parents as the two were never in a relationship, he has been involved in the child’s life since birth, escalating to overnight stays from when the child was 6 months old, to 2 nights each week and sometimes 3 nights. A child support arrangement was entered into that is to last until the child reaches 16 years of age.

The mother has since had 2 other children to 2 different men and the father has been the sperm donor on one other occasion that resulted in another child, which the mother was unaware of.

As a result of her second pregnancy, the mother wanted to relocate which would have caused difficulty in the father spending time the child. This relocation was conducted despite an order restraining the mother from doing so.

Once the mother found out that the father had another child, she began denigrating the father to other people, including his solicitor and the greater public by altering the father’s Wikipedia page.

The mother attempted to remove the child from her school by contacting the principal and staff in an abusive manner. The mother attempted to enrol the child in another school despite consent orders that required both parents to consent to the child’s educational institution.

A Family Report was conducted that recommended that the father have sole parental responsibility for certain aspects of the child’s life (now aged 7), particularly educational needs. The father was concerned that the mother hit the child and made negative comments about the father in front of the child.

The Family Report writer made observations that the child may be subject to “parentification” as a result of the mother’s manic behaviour and the child placing expectations on herself to support the mother. Parentification is the process of role reversal where the child becomes the parent, needing to look after their own parent. This can have adverse consequences on a child’s emotional development and can affect adult relationships later in life.

The child also admitted to being more comfortable in her father’s residence. This, along with the mother’s obvious and unrelenting hostility towards the father and his family, led the court to order that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child’s educational needs, and that the child live with the father. The court also considered the mother’s previous actions of removing the child from school, acting abusively to the staff, and her inability to discuss education issues with the father would result in matters being unresolved and possibly ending up in court again.

Spousal Privilege

Posted on by
Reply

By Glen Northway, Solicitor

Whether it is derived from movies or television, many people are probably of the belief that if you are asked to give evidence against your husband or wife, you are entitled to refuse to do so on the basis that your evidence may incriminate your partner.

This is commonly referred to as “spousal privilege”.

The decision of the High Court in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart & Anor [2011] 282 ALR 620 handed down on 30 November 2011 would suggest otherwise.

By way of background, Mr Stoddart was a self-employed accountant in Queensland.  The Australian Crime Commission (“ACC”) had instigated an investigation into his practices and at that time, Mrs Stoddart provided part time secretarial assistance to her husband’s practice.  The ACC summoned Mrs Stoddart to appear before an examiner of the ACC in connection with the investigation into her husband’s affairs.  During questioning and under oath, she claimed her entitlement to “the privilege of spousal incrimination”.  That claim of privilege was rejected by the ACC examiner however the examination was adjourned to allow Mrs Stoddart to file proceedings to determine the status of her alleged privilege.

At first instance before the Federal Court of Australia, Rees J held that spousal privilege existed at common law but that the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (“the ACC Act”) abrogated that claimed privilege.  On appeal, the three judge bench found 2:1 in the Full Court of the Federal Court that the ACC Act did not abrogate Mrs Stoddart’s claim of privilege.  The ACC was then granted leave to appeal that decision to the High Court.  In a 5:1 decision with Heydon J dissenting, the ACC appeal was allowed.

In upholding the appeal and dismissing the order of the Full Court, the majority found that “no privilege of the kind claimed could be raised in answer” to the obligation to be examined by an ACC examiner in accordance with the ACC Act.  They also found that “it cannot be said that at the time of the enactment of the ACC Act in 2002, the common law in Australia recognised the privilege asserted by the wife or that it does so now.”

Heydon J in his dissenting judgment, found that the common law does recognise a spouse as having privilege not to answer questions which may incriminate the other spouse, that it was not merely a rule of evidence but a rule of substantive law, and finally that the ACC Act contained no explicit language abolishing the common law claim to spousal privilege and that such a privilege still survives.

So, the next time you think your partner is about to do something dodgy, be aware that you may not be able to refuse to answer questions later on down the track because of spousal privilege.

 

Father denied time with child: Court reminds us that the paramount consideration is the child’s best interests

Posted on by
Reply

Recent media reports claim ‘shared care dead’ after the Full Court of the Family Court upheld a decision of His Honour Federal Magistrate Wilson.

The decision made no provision for the father to spend time with the child of the marriage. However, a close reading of the appeal decision makes it clear that there was only one victim in this matter: the young child of this relationship. But “Sometimes in parenting cases it is often between alternatives, both of which are less than optimal” (Federal Magistrate Wilson).

The child and her mother were locked out of the family home by the father sometime in February 2007. What follows is a lengthy and litigious family law dispute about the welfare of this child.

The facts reveal that there are two parents who have both, at times, acted inappropriately and not in their daughter’s best interests.

The father sought court orders to see his daughter a few times a week and on school holidays. Father and child were seeing each other up until such time as the father had the daughter examined at a local hospital alleging that the mother’s new partner had sexually abused her. As the Federal Magistrate described, this had a ‘cataclysmic effect’ on the course of the matter. As a result of the allegation, the mother commenced withholding the child from her father. The father responded by commencing a string of contravention applications against the mother for not complying with the court orders. Matters between the parents could not be resolved and a trial was commenced and abandoned a couple of times.

The Department of Child Safety investigated the abuse allegations and His Honour determined that the child had not been abused. Despite this finding, the father continued to believe the child was being abused and took her to counselling on one of his few visits. On this occasion, the child made further disclosures of abuse, this time against her own father. These events caused the department to take out a child protection order. The department wanted to institute supervised time between the father and child, but the mother was so upset at the prospect, she fled. Visits were eventually resumed after the mother was threatened with arrest, but the child said she didn’t want to spend time with the father.

The crux of this dispute was the father wanting access to his daughter. He did not seek orders that she live with him, but he did want to be involved in his daughter’s life. The dispute became protracted and insurmountable when the mother refused to allow the access and to foster any relationship between the father and the child. This resulted in a child caught in the middle of a fight between her parents and being potentially subject to emotional and other forms of psychological abuse from each parent.

As is often the case with contentious children’s cases, a lawyer was appointed to represent the child and experts such as a psychiatrist and a family consultant provided reports to assist the court. The children’s lawyer supported the father in spending time with the child, and that every effort should be made to make the mother comply with an order to that effect.

The decision made by the Magistrate was a most unusual one, made all the more difficult by the evidence that showed the child had a close and loving relationship with her father. Despite this bond, no expert recommended that the child should live with the father. That would only upset the balance of what the child had always known, that is to live with her mother, who was, and had always been, her primary carer.

The Family Law Act 1975 provides a ‘pathway’ to making decisions that are in a child’s best interests. Section 60CC sets out criteria for such interests, which are then applied to the questions of whether parents should spend equal time or substantial and significant time with a child; and finally whether those arrangements are practicable.

The objective of the Act is that it is beneficial for a child to have a close and loving relationship with both parents. However, each case must turn on its own facts and this is one such exception.

Federal Magistrate Wilson ruled, in a 90 page judgment, that the child should live with the mother and the mother be solely responsible for her. No provision was made for the father to spend time with the child. In the end His Honour was called to weigh up the facts and make a decision about what would ultimately be in this child’s best interests.

It is prudent to quote His Honour in full:

I have wrestled with devising some form of order that would see the child spend time with her father on a periodic basis, with changeovers occurring at some neutral place such as a contact centre. However, I conclude that such a regime would not work and in fact would inflict further emotional harm on the child. I reach that conclusion also cognisant of the fact that if the mother defies such orders, as she has stated she will do, the option of changing the child’s residential parent is not a viable one. I have reached that conclusion because interim orders have been made on a fairly regular basis over the past almost three years and they have proved troublesome. Whenever one parent has the opportunity of criticising the other they do so and have run to the court for assistance. Most recently, the mother has demonstrated most emphatically that she was not supportive of the child having any relationship with her father. If orders were made that compel the mother to deliver the child to a contact centre to spend time with the father either on a supervised or unsupervised basis, I am convinced that the child would not attend such visits as has happened on repeated occasions during the past six or seven months.

More importantly he goes on to say:

I am cognisant that the termination of a child’s relationship with one of her parents is a course of last resort. This outcome is neither satisfying to the court nor edifying of either party. However, when the child’s best interests are the focus, rather than the expectations or hopes of either parent, the conclusion reached is inevitable. It may be thought that the result arrived at demonstrates either an acceptance of the mother’s position or a surrender to her unreasonable refusal to permit a relationship between the child and her father. Neither of those conclusions is correct. Once it is accepted, as I do, that it is not in the child’s best interests to live primarily with her father; and that because of the antipathy between the parents any form of shared parenting would expose the child to further emotional abuse, the court is really left with no alternative but to make the orders that I propose. The orders should not be seen as any vindication of the mother’s actions.

The father’s challenge to the decision on appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court was dismissed.

This was never a shared parenting case. The father did not seek such an order (he did briefly during the trial, but later abandoned the idea). Despite many interest groups in the community wishing the amendments to the Family Law Act would peel away the prospect (or scope) of shared care, it remains an issue unless the presumption of shared parental responsibility is rebutted and the circumstances warrant a different care arrangement.

Parents in the family court system should not look at this decision as a win for either parent. The court will continue to shun parents who alienate and ostracise relationships with the other parent. Think of the best interests of the child and determine your actions based on this guiding principle.

For further information or family law advice contact family@whd.com.au or call 07 3232 5700.

Family Court rules on child’s name

Posted on by
Reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Family Law Blog, where we will discuss issues and offer useful information on issues affecting your family, including family law, parenting, divorce, binding financial agreements, property settlements, wills and estate planning.

This first issue discusses the interesting case heard by the Family Court in Queensland where it was forced to rule on a child’s name.

———-

The Family Court has recently been forced to determine the  name of a small child after the parents failed to agree.  The child, now aged two years, is known by a different name in each respective parent’s household.

In a judgement handed down by newly appointed Justice Colin Forrest in June 2011, he was required to decide the child’s name to allow her birth to be formally recorded with the Queensland Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.  His Honour said that
‘in all the circumstances, the child should be known by the name preferred by the mother alone, as the mother was the one caring for the child single handedly at birth and who has done so, principally, ever since and decided on reasonable reflection to name her that at birth for what, His Honour accepted, were clearly good enough reasons.  The mother named the child after considering and clearly rejecting the name the father preferred’.  His Honour went on to say, the child is now generally known to the world by the name chosen by the mother except for the time she spends in the father’s household.

It was acknowledged that whilst the father may continue to call the child by her preferred name, the child would for all other purposes, be formally known by her registered name.

If you require legal advice or representation for a family law issue, please feel free to contact us on family@whd.com.au or visit our website.