Father Opposes Final Parenting Orders

Gallea & Gallea (No. 2) [2021] FamCAFC 145 (9 August 2021)

Final parenting orders were made granting the mother sole parental responsibility.  Orders were also made for the father to spend time with the child and require him to obtain a mental health assessment.  The father opposed the final parenting orders asserting that the orders were unclear and that he seeks a continuation of his relationship with the child.  The Court, in deciding whether or not to grant the father's request for appeal, relied upon the father's grounds for appeal and whether or not such grounds have demonstrated any appealable error. 

Facts:

The primary judge ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility subject to the mother consulting the father in relation to the child’s education and health prior to any decision being made, and that the child live with the mother.  Despite being represented by experienced counsel, the father did not seek any specific parenting order but sought such order for the child to spend time with him as the Court determined was in the child’s best interests.  The order for the child’s time with the father, expressed as a final order, is for an initial period of six months, for two hours each alternate Saturday and Sunday at a supervised contact centre.  Orders were made for the father thereafter to obtain a mental health assessment.  In the event that the Father commences further proceedings in relation to the child, specifically in the event that he has undertaken six months of supervision in accordance with these Orders, and obtained a mental health assessment as required, no ‘Rice & Asplund’ point shall be taken by the Mother. 

The father appeals final parenting orders made by a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 18 September 2020.  The father said he was looking to resume his relationship with the child, that he was a good person, a good husband and father, that he had done nothing wrong and urged us to reunite him with the child (inferentially on an unsupervised basis).  The father indicated that he did not understand why the primary judge had reached a conclusion that he would benefit from an assessment as to his mental health.  He further asserts that the orders made were unclear and/or ambiguous and/or unable to be carried out and/or unenforceable. 

Issue:

Whether or not the father's application should be dismissed. 

Applicable law:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC - provides that the Court, in making parenting orders, should take the child's best interests as the paramount consideration. 

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 94AAA(7) - entitles the Court to give its reasons in short form in the event that the appeal is to be dismissed and if, in the opinion of the Full Court, the appeal does not raise any question of general principle.

Analysis:

The primary judge concluded that the limited nature of the spend time order was in the child’s best interests having regard to the findings he had made in relation to the father’s mental health status.  The father said he understood the primary judge had left a path open for him to come back to the court and apply for unsupervised time with the child.  However the father had not yet obtained the mental health assessment.  The primary judge took into account evidence by a psychiatrist engaged as a single expert that the father had concerning personality traits of rigidity, obsessiveness, overbearing behaviour and self-absorption.

During the interview with the single expert, the father had displayed the same extreme distraught behaviour as observed by the primary judge.  The primary judge specifically highlights a comment made in the single expert’s report that the father’s behaviour “had elements of a rather immature form of emotional outburst which one often sees in quite obsessional but naïve people”.

Conclusion: 

The Court concluded that the father has not demonstrated any appealable error. The Court ordered that the Appeal shall be dismissed.  Within a period of seven (7) days, the respondent mother shall file and serve any further evidence and submissions in support of the respondent’s costs application. Within a further seven (7) days, the appellant father shall file and serve any further evidence and submissions in response.