FATHER’S TIME WITH CHILDREN REDUCED TO REDUCE CONFLICT

Walsh & Maher [2020] FamCAFC 7 (16 January 2020)

Facts:

This is an appeal proceeding that arose from a parental proceeding between Mr. Walsh (Appellant) and Ms. Maher (Respondent).  Mr. Walsh appeals against the amended final order rendered by the trial judge in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in the said parental proceeding that, among others, gave Ms. Maher sole parental responsibility for their children and reduced Mr. Walsh’s time to be spend with their children from five nights per fortnight to three on the ground that the trial judge failed to state reasons that reducing the time he can spend with his children is in the best interests of his children not to be exposed to his demonstrated manipulative behavior and not to be involved in the parental conflict.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial judge erred in finding that reducing the children’s time with their father will minimize conflict and will be in the best interests of the children.

Held:

(Kent, J.)  No. 

It was settled in Bennett and Bennett [1990] FamCA 148; (1991) FLC 92-191 that the adequacy of the reasons will depend upon the circumstance of the case.  It is inadequate if the appeal court is unable to ascertain the reasoning upon which the decision is based; or if justice is not seen to have been done.

The Court explained that the reasons for judgment of the trial judge, if read as a whole, reflects that she focused upon the possibility of harm to the children if they spend more time with their father.  Her decision to lessen the time will reduce the children’s exposure to their father’s behavior and parental conflict.  Moreover, her reasons for judgment were reached after considering the evidence of the family report writer who stated that the poor co-parenting dynamics between Mr. Walsh and Ms. Maher would result to risks of emotional harm to the children and espoused the reduction of the children's time spend with their father, which will limit the need for co-parenting, joint decision-making, and communication between the parents.

Finding the reasons for judgment is clear and enough, so as to reduce the children’s time with their father, the appeal was dismissed.

Although the children wished to spend more time with their father, the decision of the court to reduce the time they get to spend with their father was to ensure that they are less exposed to conflict between their parents and lessen the risks of emotional harm to them.  It is noteworthy to remember that the best interests of the children are the primary concern of the courts.  It will not hesitate to render a judgment, although painful for the parties and their children, that will safeguard the welfare of the children.