Astin & Harlow

[2007] FamCA 1544

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ASTIN & HARLOW [2007] FamCA 1544

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN —With whom a child spends time — Orders —Contravention—where mother alleges countless and repetitive contraventions—where parties only witnesses to incidents in question—whether father has reasonable excuse for contravention—where father relied upon advice and information from solicitors—where confusion as to effect of concurrently operating orders—where mother sought to re-litigate children's issues—where mother failed to adduce Rice v Asplund grounds—contraventions dismissed—leave to re-litigate children's issues denied.

APPLICANT: Ms Astin

RESPONDENT: Mr Harlow

FILE NUMBER: BRF 9414 of 2000

DATE DELIVERED: 24 October 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Barry J

HEARING DATE: 24 October 2007

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: The applicant appeared on her own behalf

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Carmody of Counsel appeared for the Respondent

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT: Carne Reidy Herd, Solicitors

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Nine (9) contraventions contained in the Mother’s Contravention Applications dated 22 June 2007 and 1 July 2007 are dismissed.

1. The Mother’s Application in Form 2 dated 25 July 2007 is dismissed.

1. The Mother is to pay 50% of the Father’s taxed costs of and incidental to today’s proceedings and the proceedings before Judicial Registrar Smith on 9 July 2007.

1. Liberty to apply.

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:

1. All other outstanding contraventions contained in the Mother’s Contravention Applications dated 22 June 2007 and 1 July 2007 are dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRF 9414 of 2000

MS ASTIN

Applicant

And

MR HARLOW

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I propose to give a brief overview of the history of this litigation so that the current proceedings can be seen in context and seen in perspective of the events that have transpired over the last seven years. 

2. The proceedings commenced, I believe by application by the father, in November 2000.  In early 2001 a report from Mr N was made available and subsequently a family report from Ms E was also available by April 2002.

3. The matter proceeded to an eight day trial in June, September and December 2002.  His Honour Monteith J handed down a decision in February 2003.  The effect of that order was the child was to live with the father.  That decision having been given on 10 February 2003 the mother filed proceedings on 5 March, less than a month later, seeking to amend the orders in significant ways.  I take into account that by the end of that month orders were made, I think largely by consent, but if not, the orders were certainly made amending the orders in accordance with the mother's application.

4. In May 2004 Mr M provided a report.  Suffice it to say that Mr M is an extremely experienced social worker who regularly provides reports and gives evidence in this jurisdiction.  He was satisfied at that…