ABADI & SOKULSKY

[2016] FamCA 587

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ABADI & SOKULSKY [2016] FamCA 587

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – best interests – reintroduction to a parent

APPLICANT: Mr Abadi

RESPONDENT: Ms Sokulsky

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Boland Legal

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3215 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 8 July 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 8 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-Representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Self-Representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms M Orczykowski

Orders

I make orders in accordance with the Minute of Orders Sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed 8 July 2016:
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT

1. The child, B (born, … 2009) live with the mother.

2. The parties engage a private psychologist as agreed between them and failing agreement they engage Dr C, Psychologist to supervise and assist the parties with the introduction of the child to the father in a child focused, supportive and appropriate manner and in this respect the following shall apply:

   (a)The parents shall initially each meet on a separate occasion with the nominated psychologist.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. (b)      The parties equally share the costs of the child attending upon the nominated Psychologist.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT

1. (c)      In the event the nominated Psychologist requires the parties to attend individual sessions each party shall solely bear the cost of such attendance.

   (d)The mother shall ensure that the child attends each appointment as scheduled by the nominated Psychologist and in the event the child is unable to attend a scheduled session the mother shall immediately notify the Independent Children’s Lawyer and provide details of re-scheduling.

2. The parties agree to take on board the nominated Psychologist’s recommendations regarding the following:

   (a)When the child should first attend upon the nominated Psychologist;

   (b)When the child should be first introduced to the father; and

   (c)The frequency and length of the introduction process ensuring that it takes into account the child’s best interest in the short and long term.

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall provide to the agreed psychologist or Dr C whichever applies a copy of the Family Report dated 1 June 2016.

4. When the nominated Psychologist forms the view that it is appropriate and in the child’s best interest, the child spend time with the father for a period of two hours each fortnight supervised by either … or other suitably qualified contact service and in this regard:

   (a)Both parties shall forthwith complete all necessary enrolments and intake assessments as may be required by the nominated contact service.

   (b)Both parties shall equally share the costs of the father spending supervised time with the child in accordance with this orders, in the event costs apply.

5. The proceedings be thereafter adjourned for further mention on a date suitable to the court.  The parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer have liberty to apply.

6. Leave be granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the father and the mother to relist the matter on 14 days’ notice in the event that the therapeutic process with the nominated psychologist is not progressing positively.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. Both parties are hereby restrained from denigrating the other or any extended family members in the presence of hearing of the child.

2. Both parties communicate with one another via email only.

IT IS NOTED THAT:

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposes to communicate with the nominated Psychologist as to the progress of the matter and may request a short report for the purposes of updating the court on the next occasion.

2. The purpose of the adjournment is to allow the parties and child to engage with the nominate psychologist and that the further mention date act as a review as to the progress of such engagement.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Abadi & Sokulsky has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3215 of 2010

Mr Abadi

Applicant

And

Ms Sokulsky

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I make orders in accordance with the Minute of Orders Sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed 8 July 2016.  Those orders are made by consent save for Order 2.b.

2. There is little material before the Court as to the relative financial positions of the two parties other than it has been identified that the mother is a medical general practitioner.  She has also indicated to me from the Bar Table that she intends two overseas trips with her children this year - that is sufficient to satisfy me that the limited costs required for the payment for the child to attend upon the psychologist are within her means as are the limited costs in relation to her own attendances. 

3. Accordingly, I make orders in the terms as sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in relation to that matter.

4. Further, I note that Order 8 is not made by consent in that the father resists the making of a non-denigration order on the basis that he says that it is not required because he will be supervised.  It seems to me that it is the child’s interests that the parents are subject to coordinate obligations in terms of their responsibilities for the representation of each other to the child and accordingly, although it is not by consent, I make orders in terms of Order 8.

5. It is not clear to me that Order 9 is made by consent.  I make Order 9 in any event for reasons that I have articulated to the parties.  Order 9 acts as a proper protection of both of the parties.  Ms Sokulsky alleges stalking, violence and other significant family violence related activity on the part of Mr Abadi.  Mr Abadi denies such and alleges that Ms Sokulsky is abusive and manipulative.  I am unable to resolve those issues at this point but note that the terms of Order 9 protect each from adverse behaviour on the part of the other in the sense that by production of the e-mails to the Court they can be made accountable for any such conduct.

6. I note that Ms Sokulsky has indicated her difficulty in complying with attendances on less than two weeks’ notice.  I accept that it is difficult for her to do so.  I request that where it is necessary for Ms Sokulsky to attend upon a treating practitioner or supervision service that she is given at least two weeks’ notice.  I know that this may not always be achievable and in such circumstances the fact that two weeks’ notice has not been given does not relieve her of any obligation to attend.

7. I note from the Independent Children’s Lawyer that Dr C is available to see the parties and the child within two weeks’ of today’s date and that she is then not available until the end of August.

8. I amend Order 7 of the Minute of Orders Sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and grant that leave not only to the Independent Children’s Lawyer but also to the parties and I amend Order 6 of the agreed terms to give liberty to the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer to have the matter relisted for a further Court date.

9. Otherwise the matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 8 July 2016.

Associate: 

Date: