WA After final orders...

[SRL_Perth_WA]

Good afternoon all,

Today my matter in the family court was finalised and the e-file closed. Not wishing to celebrate the closing of this six year long matter too soon, I want to check the options open to the other party in regards to appeal or re-filing.

Long story short, the FC decided the case had been ongoing for too long and no resolution was insight - the applicant had not been attending hearings, reunification or LDR. A readiness hearing was ordered, the applicant did not file documents, they were then given a further 30days but still did not file. A correspondence letter from the applicant, addressed to the respondent, was provided to FC at the final hour outlining three types of agreement they wanted to be considered but no trial material. It appears the correspondence was not addressed as the file was closed the following morning, and the orders I sought were made final.

I understand an error in law is to be proven for an appeal to be accepted, I’m not legally trained but it doesn’t appear that is the case here?

I am to also understand that to begin proceedings again the applicant would have to start from scratch i.e. reapply for mediation, obtain a certificate, etc. Is this something that could happen immediately or is there a period of time that has to pass before this can happen?

 

[Geddius75]

Yes the applicant will need to start from scratch and no less then 12 months after the original order has been issued. They will also need to argue Asplund vs. Rice and how the circumstances have changed significantly enough to justify the application.

 

[SRL_Perth_WA]

Thankyou Geddius75, the case citation Is exactly what I’m looking for.

I am curious however how Aspland vs. Rice would be used in the instance that final orders were made due to non-compliance of the applicant i.e. the applicant not filing trial documentation as per orders, as opposed to final orders made through final trial.

 

[Atticus]

I understand an error in law is to be proven for an appeal to be accepted

Looks like the applicant was given every opportunity to take part so no grounds for not receiving procedural fairness... Other than that as you point out an error of law, but it appears that no judgment was actually handed down anyway? You were granted orders sought basically because the applicant was a no show...

 

[SRL_Perth_WA]

Yes that would correctly sum the matter up.

Yes, that makes sense. Please correct me if I’m wrong... essentially where there is no judgement, there is no error in law, and as procedural fairness was given, there is no avenue for appeal?

 

[sammy01]

I appreciate your privacy - But just outa interest, especially if kids were involved how did the matter resolve itself? one parent given spr? Does the other parent see the kids? Or was it just financial?

 

[SRL_Perth_WA]

Hi Sammy01,

I apologise for keeping the facts brief, but an open forum unnerves me somewhat.

It was a matter only concerning children. The applicant openly wished to exchange their parental responsibility (including the children’s rights to time/relationship with them), for a binding financial agreement releasing them from paying CSA. I did not consent to the binding agreement and filed material, when they did not file for a second time, final orders were made for SPR and no access.

I guess it wasn’t really resolved in the sense that final orders were made due to the applicant not filing trial material.

 

[sammy01]

oh wow... I reckon you could have just agreed. CSA would not accept a binding financial agreement IF it meant the parent got away with not paying child support. Win to you in the long run. Sad that the other parent wanted nothing to do with the kids, but nothing you can do about it...