ANDREWS & GRANT

[2015] FCCA 952

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDREWS & GRANT [2015] FCCA 952

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – 7 year old Child – five day trial in October 2014 – judgment reserved – Mother seeks to reopen – long history of parental conflict – evidence adduced does not warrant reopening – in Child’s best interests for litigation to end.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.69ZN(3)-(7)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2006) 235 ALR 587
CDJ v VAJ [1998] FLC, 92-828
King & King [2014] FCCA 163
Reid v Brett [2005] VSC 18 at 41
Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256
Suell & Suell (Re-opening) [2009] FamCA55
Suess & Jackson (2009) FamCA 164
Zau & Uong(No.2) [2015] FamCA 56

Applicant: MR ANDREWS

Respondent: MS GRANT

File Number: SYC 3007 of 2009

Judgment of: Judge Sexton

Hearing date: 30 March 2015

Date of Last Submission: 30 March 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 17 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R. Schonell  S.C

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mills Oakley Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Blackah

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: S Davitt Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Mother’s application to adduce further evidence filed on 18 February 2015 be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 3007 of 2009

MR ANDREWS

Applicant

And

MS GRANT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. A five day parenting hearing between the parties to this Application in a Case concluded on 24 October 2014. Judgment was reserved and has not yet been delivered. The proceedings relate to the parties’ only child, [X], who is 7 years of age. There has been a long history of conflict between the parties and the issues in the case are complex.  Each party makes serious allegations about the other.  [X] has always been in the primary care of the Mother. The Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer propose that [X] be moved to the Father because of the risk issues involved if she is left in the primary care of the Mother. The Father has remarried.   

2. By Application in a Case filed on 18 February 2015, the Mother seeks orders:

   a)To reopen the hearing and adduce more evidence.

   b)The Father be directed to provide consent to Dr G to speak to the Mother and keep the Mother informed of [X]’s therapy;

   c)The Father and Ms D, the Father’s wife, be restrained from taking [X] to any form of family therapy without the Mother’s consent;  

   d)The Father provide notice, prior to the commencement of school at 8.30a.m, to the Mother if he is late taking [X] to school or if [X] is not at school.

   e)The Father ensure that [X]’s mobile phone is charged and switched on and he facilitates her calling and provides her with privacy whilst doing so.  

3. By Response filed 5 March…