Abramsson & Abramsson (No 3)
[2025] FedCFamC1F 43
•31 January 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
FIRST INSTANCE
Abramsson & Abramsson (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 43
File number: BRC 5917 of 2022 Judgment of: CAREW J Date of judgment: 31 January 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for interim parenting order – Where the applicant’s application for a stay pending appeal of the final order was dismissed – Where the Court has no jurisdiction – Application dismissed – Costs granted to the respondent. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65DAAA Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: 31 January 2025 Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: Mr George Solicitor for the Applicant: Neilson Law Solicitor for the Respondent: Finnigan Smith Law ORDER
BRC 5917 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS ABRAMSSON
Applicant
AND: MR ABRAMSSON
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CAREW J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JANUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Paragraphs 3 – 14 of the Application in a Proceeding filed by Ms Abramsson (“the mother”) on 20 December 2024 be dismissed.
2.The application for a stay of part of the final parenting order made by on 6 December 2024 as contained in the Response filed by Mr Abramsson (“the father”) on 30 January 2025 be listed for hearing before the Honourable Justice Baumann on Tuesday 4 February 2025 at 2.00 pm.
3.The mother pay the father’s costs of appearance today fixed in the sum of $321 to be paid within 14 days.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CAREW J:
On 6 December 2024, a final parenting order was made providing for Mr Abramsson (“the father”) to have sole decision making responsibility for the two children of his marriage with Ms Abramsson (“the mother”) and for the children to live with the father and to spend gradually increasing time with the mother.
The two children, the subject of those proceedings, are X aged seven and Y aged three.
The mother has appealed against the final parenting order and the father has cross-appealed.
On 20 December 2024, the mother filed an application seeking a stay of the final parenting order pending the appeal, and I had assumed upon reading the application that only if successful in her stay application, the mother also sought an interim parenting order including a reversal of the living arrangements for the children. Her Counsel informs the Court that her intention was to seek an interim change whether her application for stay was granted or not.
On 29 January 2024, the mother’s stay application was dismissed by the trial judge but for reasons that remain unclear as there are yet no reasons for judgment available, the balance of the mother’s application was listed for a separate hearing.
As a final parenting order has been made, there are no pending parenting proceedings before the Court as the appeal proceedings are separate proceedings. There is no capacity to revisit on an interim basis the final parenting order in the way sought by the mother. If the mother were to file a fresh Initiating Application, she would have to do so in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) as this Court has no original jurisdiction in parenting proceedings until transferred to this Court. If the mother embarked on that course, she would have to satisfy that Court of the requirements of s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), namely, that there has been a significant change in circumstances since the 6 December 2024 and that it would otherwise be in the best interests of the children to embark upon further parenting proceedings.
Accordingly, the balance of the mother’s Application in a Proceeding filed 20 December 2024 will be dismissed.
On 29 January 2025, the father was ordered to file a Response to the mother’s Application in a Proceeding and an affidavit. Again, it is unclear why that would be the case in the circumstances. In any event, the father has filed a Response but it is in fact an application for a stay of part of the final parenting order made on 6 December 2024. An application for a stay of an order must be heard by the judge who made the order unless that judge is unavailable. Having made enquiries about the availability of the Honourable Justice Baumann, I propose to list the hearing of the father’s stay application before his Honour next Tuesday at 2.00 pm.
COSTS
The father applies for his costs but in circumstances where most of the material was filed by the mother in support of her stay application and that has been dealt with, and the father has now filed his own application for a stay it seems to me that the only costs for which the father should be able to apply are the costs of the hearing today.
The mother has been entirely unsuccessful in her application, namely, paragraphs 3 to 14 of the application and accordingly I propose to order that she pay the father’s costs of appearance today fixed in the sum of $321 to be paid in 14 days.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew. Associate:
Dated: 31 January 2025
0
0
1