Adamson and Adamson

[2014] FCCA 541

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADAMSON & ADAMSON [2014] FCCA 541

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Contravention of parenting orders.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Adamson & Adamson [2013] FCCA 1228

Applicant: MR ADAMSON

Respondent: MS ADAMSON

File Number: PAC 1461 of 2007

Judgment of: Judge Scarlett

Hearing date: 8 January 2014

Date of Last Submission: 8 January 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 8 January 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Ginges

Solicitors for the Applicant: Blackman Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Rosic

Solicitors for the Respondent: Fortis Law Group

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Whelan

ORDERS

1. The contravention application filed on 17 October 2013 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Adamson & Adamson is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

PAC 1461 of 2007

MR ADAMSON

Applicant

And

MS ADAMSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The substantive application before the Court is an application - contravention brought by the Father against the Mother.  It alleges two breaches or contraventions of Orders made by this Court on 12^th August 2013.  Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the application is defective in that the contravention alleged on the face of the application has not been and cannot be made out.  It is, in fact, a submission that there is no prima facie case. 

2. It is important to look at the Application itself.  It was filed on 17^th October 2013.  In Part D of the Application, under the heading Details of the Alleged Contravention the Application states at paragraph 6 the numbers “2” and “3”, representing paragraph numbers of orders said to have been contravened.  Paragraph 7 requires the Applicant to state precisely what the Respondent did or did not do, which the Applicant alleges amounts to a contravention, including the date, time and place, if applicable.  The date is given as 9^th October 2013. 

3. The statement of the alleged contravention says:

   On 9 October 2013 the Full Court of the Family Court dismissed the appeal by the respondent mother to have the orders 2 and 3 dismissed.  His Honour, Judge Scarlett’s stay of these orders ended at this time.  The respondent mother was required to return the children to the Sydney metropolitan area under order 3 at that time and has not complied with this order.  The respondent mother picked the children up after a weekend visit with the father on Sunday 13 October and took them out of the Sydney metropolitan area back to (omitted), in breach of order 2.

4. The submission by Mr Rosic of counsel for the Applicant is that no prima facie case has been made out.  He referred first of all to Order 2 which says:

   The respondent mother is restrained from removing the children, X born (omitted) 1999 and Y born (omitted) 2001 from outside of the Sydney metropolitan area.

   Order 3 says:

   The respondent mother…