Anderson and McCafferty

[2007] FamCA 1168

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDERSON & MCCAFFERTY [2007] FamCA 1168

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – family report recommends that father’s visits with child be supervised – father wants his partner’s mother to supervise visits – mother opposes the partners choice of supervisor – adjourned for interim hearing

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Anderson

RESPONDENT: Ms McCafferty

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission

FILE NUMBER: ADF 1110 of 2001

DATE DELIVERED: 13 September 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 13 September 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Dickson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Adelaide Family Law

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S COUNSEL: Ms Horvat

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission

Orders

1. That each party file and serve an Application in a Case setting out the interim orders each party seeks together with an affidavit in support by 4:00pm on 3 October 2007.

2. That the parties do everything necessary to facilitate the continuation of supervised visits between the child born … May 2000 and the father at the H Children’s Contact Service.

3. That the parties equally share the costs associated with the supervised visits between the said child and the father at the H Children’s Contact Service.

4. That further consideration be adjourned to the Duty Judge at 9:45am on 10 October 2007.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADF 1110 of 2001

MR ANDERSON  

Applicant

And

MS MCCAFFERTY

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. This matter is back before me, having been adjourned from 25 July 2007, and indeed on that date it had been adjourned from 11 April 2007. 

2. I will not go into the history of the matter but the current position is that this matter is to be heard under Division 12A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Unfortunately, though, there needed to be certain things attended to before the first day's hearing could take place and it is still not clear as to when that can occur. However, things have still progressed.

3. We now have a report of the Children's Contact Service and also a report by Ms C from P Services.  That report has only just been received and the parties have only had a chance to look at it in the last day or so.

4. Ms C makes recommendations as to the progress of this matter; namely, moving to the child having daytime visits with the father.  Unfortunately there is no agreement today about that given that one of the recommendations is in effect that those visits be supervised and there is no agreement about the supervisor.  Ms C suggests a particular supervisor, but the mother will not agree; she wants to suggest other supervisors.  That inevitably will delay the matter and in particular delay the time when the father and the child will be able to spend day time together.

5. However, that is not the only difficulty.  The father himself raises issues with the report; namely, he challenges the need for the daytime visits to proceed for six months; he suggests it be eight weeks.  I do not know yet what the basis of his challenge is but Ms C is an experienced psychologist who has made what appears to me to be sensible recommendations, yet the parties cannot seem to agree about how this matter is to progress. 

6. Another issue is whether the recommendation of Ms C that the father attend a parenting course occurs before these daytime visits commence.  Ms C does not comment on that in her report, that I could see, but the mother has taken it up and says that she wants the parenting course to occur before any daytime visits occur. 

7. I do not have sufficient information before me to make any comment about this issue but I repeat that we have a recommendation from an experienced psychologist and the psychologist does not say that the course should be completed first.

8. What is frustrating about all this is that the father has not seen the child, or, more importantly, the child has not seen her father since July 2007, and there is going to be a further delay in that resuming.  And this, despite the basic premise being that this child should spend some time with her father.

9. I have to now set this matter down for an interim hearing but that cannot take place until 10 October 2007.  In the meantime, I have raised whether there is any prospect of the father spending time with the child at the Children's Contact Service on a continuation of the previous arrangement.  Ms Horvat has kindly agreed for her instructor to make some inquiries about that and hopefully that can happen, because I understand the mother is agreeable to that, which I am pleased about. 

10. One thing that can happen in the meantime, is that the father can commence his parenting course, and he is quite happy to.  He is also quite happy to receive some suggestions about that from the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  Thus it may be that the issue as to whether the parenting course takes place first or not becomes a sterile debate, but I will leave that to the duty judge who is going to hear this matter on 10 October 2007.

I certify that the preceding 10 numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons herein of the Honourable Justice Strickland.

Associate

13 September 2007