Aiten and Aiten

[2013] FamCA 675

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AITEN & AITEN [2013] FamCA 675

FAMILY LAW – Parenting: undefended

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Aiten

RESPONDENT: Mr Aiten

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10520 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 14 June 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 14 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Meehan

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Matthew Oldham

THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Jenkinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Schetzer Constantinou

Orders

1. That there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the wife engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

4. That all outstanding applications are otherwise dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10520 of 2011

Ms Aiten

Applicant

And

Mr Aiten

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an undefended proceeding.  It is unusual because the matter came on for hearing on 5 June, at which stage the husband attended.  He indicated that he had not only not filed any material, but he did not want to participate, and knowing that the wife had to file an affidavit of evidence in chief, the matter had to be adjourned.  He indicated he did not intend to return on the next hearing date, nor did he want even the material that she was to file in the interim period served upon him. 

2. I have read the wife’s trial affidavit.  I have read the background of the matter.  I have now read the minute of proposed orders.  These are very sensible orders for B, and they carry the recommendation of the independent children’s lawyer as well. 

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 14 June 2013.

Associate:

Date:  16 July 2013