ANDERSON & TILLEY

[2015] FCCA 597

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDERSON & TILLEY [2015] FCCA 597

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Transfer to Family Court of Australia.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.39

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.91B

Applicant: MR ANDERSON

Respondent: MS TILLEY

File Number: MLC 9260 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing date: 13 March 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 13 March 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Sarraf

Solicitors for the Applicant: Starnet Legal Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Devine

Solicitors for the Respondent: Altavilla Vessali

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Peter Lynch

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Peter Lynch

THE COURT REQUESTS THAT:

1. Pursuant to s.91B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Department of Human Services Victoria intervene in these proceedings.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Court do provide to the said Department copies of all documentation relevant to the proceedings before the Court to enable the said Department to consider the request to intervene in the proceedings.

2. The final hearing listed on 30 March 2015 is vacated.

3. Pursuant to s.39 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), these proceedings be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Family Court of Australia to be listed with such priority as that Court sees fit and on a date to be advised.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 9260 of 2013

MR ANDERSON

Applicant

And

MS TILLEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a proceeding wherein parenting orders are sought by the parties. The matter commenced in this Court upon an Initiating Application being filed by the father on 26 June 2014. The matter is listed for final hearing on 30 March 2015 with an estimated hearing time of three days. A Family Report has been prepared in the proceedings by Mr U, family consultant, dated 27 November 2014. It has been released to the parties.

2. There are eight children of the relationship of the mother and father in these proceedings. The parties’ eight children were born between 1999 and 2011. The parties separated in March 2013 when the father left the family home. The children remained in the care of their mother. Shortly after separation the mother obtained an Intervention Order against the father which included the children. This expired in May 2014. The father to this point in time has had no contact with the children since separation.

3. Whilst the father seeks to spend time with the children the mother opposes any such orders. She cannot countenance the children having any kind of relationship with the father, and she sees no benefit to them of this happening. On the contrary she believes that should the father be able to spend time with the children they run the risk of being indoctrinated with extremist ideas.

4. The matter was listed for mention this morning upon the application of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Each of the mother, father and Independent Children’s Lawyer urge the Court to transfer these proceedings to the Family Court of Australia. Amongst the reasons for doings so, is that there are now possible pending criminal charges against the father being numerous in number and serious. The investigating Detective has indicated to the Independent Children’s Lawyer that as a result of her investigations charges against the father for physical sexual abuse of family members are very likely to be laid with the alleged victims being the wife and some of the children.

5. The Department of Human Services (‘the Department’) have now intervened in the father’s ‘other’ family, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer in these proceedings is liaising with the Department as to the children the subject of this proceeding.

6. All of the parties submit that the conduct of the proceedings will be lengthy, occupying some four to five or more days in Court. The parties also indicate to the Court that the complexity of the matter has changed, and that it is now more appropriate for the matter to proceed in the superior court. The parties also seek that the Department of intervene in these proceedings. The Court this day shall makes an order pursuant to s.91B of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

7. In short compass, the above is the reason for the transfer of these proceedings to the Family Court of Australia.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Associate: 

Date:  17 March 2015