Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8

The primary judge did not err by giving limited weight to the boys' preference to remain overseas because that preference was found to be influenced by the father's conduct, nor was there a requirement under the Family Law Act to ascertain or act upon the children's views regarding all aspects of interim arrangements. The making of interim parenting orders in favour of third parties was supported by sufficient evidence and is permissible under the Act. Thus, no appealable error was established.

Parties
Appellant: Bondelmonte; First Respondent: Bondelmonte; Second Respondent: Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Parenting Orders, Children's Views, Judicial Discretion, Best Interests of the Child, Children Taken Overseas, Interim Parenting Orders
Family Law Parenting Orders Children's Views Judicial Discretion Best Interests of the Child Children Taken Overseas Interim Parenting Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bondelmonte

Appellant

Bondelmonte

First Respondent

Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred by discounting the views expressed by the children regarding their wishes to remain overseas
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge was required to ascertain the children's views as to alternative living arrangements under interim orders
  3. 3 Whether parenting orders can be made in favour of third parties not applicants to the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge did not err by giving limited weight to the boys' preference to remain overseas because that preference was found to be influenced by the father's conduct, nor was there a requirement under the Family Law Act to ascertain or act upon the children's views regarding all aspects of interim arrangements. The making of interim parenting orders in favour of third parties was supported by sufficient evidence and is permissible under the Act. Thus, no appealable error was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the second respondent's costs of this appeal.