Smithson Lawyers Principal Lawyer, Janeen Smithson has been involved in a number of reported matters, including:
– where four step process of determining matter applied
– where husband alleged that over $1.8 million of family money was unaccounted for by the wife
– where husband alleged that sum should be added back to the pool of property for division
– where there was an independent jointly appointed accountant to analyse and report on the husband’s allegations
– where that expert’s evidence did not support the husband’s allegations
– where husband’s allegations were rejected
– where husband’s disclosure was incomplete
– where substantial sums spent on legal costs by both parties were added back
– where parties’ contributions assessed as weighing equally
– where there is no adjustment for s 79(4)(e) matters
– With whom a child lives, spends time and communicates
– where the orders of the Federal Magistrate terminated all contact between the child and the father
– where it was asserted that the Federal Magistrate erred in stating his conclusion before evaluating the evidence and considering the relevant statutory provisions
– where it was asserted that the Federal Magistrate failed to consider Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC factors
– where it was asserted that the Federal Magistrate did not have sufficient regard to the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents; erred in finding the relationship between the child and the father was superficial; and failed to consider the long term effects of such orders or of the other options for the child to maintain a relationship with the father
– where it was asserted that the Federal Magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision
– where it was apparent from the Federal Magistrate’s reasons for judgment that he was aware of his obligations to consider all these matters and did so in detail
– no merit found in any of these grounds of appeal.
– where it was asserted that the Federal Magistrate failed to give appropriate weight to the recommendations of the Family Consultant
– the Full Court found the Federal Magistrate was not obliged to accept the Family Consultant’s recommendations and gave clear reasons for not doing so
– no appealable error found.
– where it was asserted that the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to hear contravention applications prior to the conclusion of the parenting proceedings
– where it was conceded by Counsel for the father that at no stage during the proceedings did those representing the father ask the Federal Magistrate to hear the contravention applications prior to the determination of the substantive proceedings
– no appealable error found.
– where it was asserted that the Federal Magistrate failed to impose appropriate sanctions against the mother
– where no specific submissions were made by those representing the father as to what would have been an appropriate penalty
– where the Federal Magistrate considered the penalty options available and gave reasons as to why none of them were appropriate
– no appealable error found.
– With whom a child lives with
– With whom a child spends time with
– PACE alert. Also Hague Convention.