FAMILY LAW ─ APPEAL ─ CHILDREN ─ Appeal against interim orders of Federal Magistrate made in parenting proceedings ─ Whether the Federal Magistrate gave excessive or impermissible weight to what he perceived to be the “child’s presumed attachment to the former matrimonial home” ─ Where it was clear beyond doubt from the transcript of the interlocutory hearing, and the reasons for judgment of the Federal Magistrate, that his Honour was acutely aware that the critical issue was whether the child should continue to spend substantially equal time with both parents, albeit in different homes, or spend more time with the mother in the home in which the child had spent most of his life ─ Where in the absence of any evidence establishing that the Federal Magistrate could not reasonably have afforded the weight he did to the factors which led to his conclusion, the challenges to the Federal Magistrate’s decision fail ─ Where the Court was not persuaded, either by reference to the terms of the Family Consultant’s memorandum, or the learned Federal Magistrate’s reasons for judgment, that his Honour materially mistook or misunderstood what the Family Consultant had said, or not said, in her memorandum ─ No Appealable error demonstrated ─ Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW ─ APPEAL ─ COSTS ─ Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful ─ Where given the hurdles to success of challenges, particularly in an interlocutory context where no evidence has been tested, or sought to be tested, the father was deemed to have persisted with his appeal notwithstanding that success with his appeal was problematic ─ Where the circumstances of this case justified the making of a costs order in favour of the mother.
NOTE: The period for seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court has not expired.