ANDREWS & NICOLA

[2014] FamCA 134

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDREWS & NICOLA [2014] FamCA 134

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment of trial refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Andrews

RESPONDENT: Ms Nicola

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4394 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 20 February 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 20 February 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Jenkinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Trapski Family Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Ms Dowler

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT               Danielle Webb Lawyer

CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Orders

1. That the application of the wife for an adjournment is refused.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Andrews & Nicola 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 4394 of 2008

Mr Andrews

Applicant

And

Ms Nicola

Respondent

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the respondent wife for an adjournment of proceedings that have been on foot for a long, long time.  As the mother quite correctly points out, there have been numerous hearings and indeed a number of final hearings.

2. This case was set down for trial in September 2013 with the very clear knowledge that there was a very significant dispute between the parties in relation to the oldest of their two daughters, R.  At that stage, I set the matter for trial because I was not satisfied that there was a basis to delay.

3. As late as 48 hours ago, police have apparently indicated that they are still investigating the complaints of R which relate to her father’s conduct.  They are serious allegations, but needless to say, that investigation has been on foot for a long time.  R in the meantime has spoken to a family consultant twice and the father has not only done that as well, but has filed affidavit material.  He is not troubled about the fact that he may be cross‑examined and put his own position, vis-à-vis any future criminal proceedings, at risk.

4. The mother’s position for an adjournment is entirely on the basis that the father is still a person of interest.  As counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father have both pointed out, those matters can be covered by future court proceedings if the criminal courts indeed take any steps that might affect the orders I might make.

5. It does not seem to me sensible to have these proceedings delayed any further, particularly where the focus of attention is really on the child K, who has been living with his father for a considerable period of time now and there has been no intervention by the Department of Human Services in the meantime.  It would not be fair to K to delay these proceedings any longer.  He deserves the right to get on with his life and to know with whom he is living and what sort of relationship he is going to be having with each of his parents.

6. There is no basis therefore to grant the adjournment and I refuse it.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 20 February 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  14 March 2014