A judge “erroneously” found that a mother committed an act of family violence against her son when she prevented him from spending time with the father because she feared he could be harmed, a court has found.
The father had been violent to the woman, and to an older child of his from a different relationship, when his former partner withdrew his access to the child soon after its birth in 2016, the federal circuit and family court found.
But Justice Michael Jarrett also ruled last year that this act by the mother should be regarded as family violence, given legal definitions designed to capture behaviour often characterised as coercive control, and granted the father shared parental responsibility of the boy.
The mother appealed this decision, arguing on six grounds of appeal that Jarrett had erred in fact and law when he made the order for shared parental responsibility in part based on the finding that she had committed an act of family violence.
In a judgment published last week, the federal circuit and family court appellate jurisdiction found Jarrett “erroneously” described the mother’s action as family violence, but dismissed her appeal.
Despite Jarrett’s decision regarding family violence being found “erroneous”, the woman’s appeal was not upheld.
Deputy chief justice Robert McClelland and Justice Peter Campton found in their reasons that this was because despite the mother having established an error by Jarrett, the “error did not affect the result of the proceeding”.