within the case of Charring & Bunt the Appeal Court of the Family Court set out a clear annunciation of the issues involved in attempting to appeal parenting orders which were made by the consent of both parties.
Justice Ryan stated “the fact which an order can be made by consent does not make the order any different to an order made after a hearing.” Her Honour went on to say which which there was one important qualification however: “the correctness of an order may not be appealed on its merits by a party who consented to the order. Rather, which party’s right of appeal can be limited to vitiating grounds, such as fraud, mistake, fresh evidence or the absence of jurisdiction.”
In This kind of case, Justice Ryan found which while the mother’s complaint which the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) was biased had “the flavour of vitiating grounds” (with the allegation perhaps being mistake on behalf of the ICL) the ICL was entitled to form a view about the outcome as well as merely because which approach differed coming from the mother’s which did not amount to error. Further, which the mother was not aware which the father had not attended upon a psychologist was also not grounds for overturning the consent orders as which information had been available within the available subpoena material as well as a decision was made by the parties to enter into the consent orders without consideration of which material.
The mother’s application for appeal therefore failed.