Ayreton and Stanley

[2010] FamCA 324

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AYRETON & STANLEY [2010] FamCA 324

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – application to appoint an alternate supervisor – unsuitability of the proposed supervisor – application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA

APPLICANT: Ms Ayreton

RESPONDENT: Mr Stanley

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Adey Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: ADC 25 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 20 APRIL 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

EX TEMPORE REASONS  OF: BURR J

HEARING DATE: 20 APRIL 2010

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Mr Childs
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Georgiadis Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Mr Joseph Bowler
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Adey Lawyers

Orders

1. The mother’s Application in a Case filed on 6 April 2010 seeking to have Ms C appointed to act as a supervisor of her time to be spent with the child D born … September 2006 is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 25 of 2008

MS AYRETON

Applicant

And

MR STANLEY

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I also have before me today for determination the mother’s Application in a Case filed on 6 April 2010.  In it she seeks an order that Ms C be approved by this Court as a supervisor of her time to be spent with the child D born in September 2006 and who is aged 3 ½ years.  It is particularly important to the mother to have supervision available to her as pursuant to the Orders made by Federal Magistrate Kelly on 25 February 2010 her time with the child must be supervised at all times.

2. The person approved as a supervisor by Federal Magistrate Kelly was Ms M.  The mother informs the Court that Ms M is no longer available to attend to supervision although there may be odd times when she can do so.  In order to ensure that she can continue to see the child the mother requires the Court’s approval of an alternative supervisor.

3. Ms C gave evidence today indicating her willingness to act as a supervisor of D’s time with the mother.  Ms C had the regrettable experience that most people who are willing to act as supervisors need to undertake, which was a very thorough, searching and, at times, unpleasant enquiry of her capacity to act in that role.  At the conclusion of that exercise Counsel for the father indicated his opposition to Ms C being approved as a supervisor but more significantly, the Independent Children’s Lawyer indicated that he too did not agree to Ms C being approved as a supervisor.

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer indicated that Ms C’s evidence as to the business that she formerly ran was not so much a concern to him, but rather what he described as her “lack of candour” in answering his questions.  The business that Ms C indicated that she ran until only yesterday, and ran for a period of some three months, was a massage parlour.  Ms C denied that those premises were operated as a brothel and indeed denied that any of the services offered at the parlour could be described as any part of the sex trade or any of the trade that is more usually associated with a massage parlour.  She acknowledged that the business was advertised in the adult section of the public notices in the paper.  She further acknowledged that the workers at those premises wore lingerie whilst servicing a largely male clientele.

5. It is unimportant whether or not I take the view that the business operated by her was indeed a brothel.  However, the regrettable experience of people who propose themselves as supervisors is that they must undergo the most intense scrutiny, scrutiny that most citizens are able to avoid. 

6. I have an obligation under the Family Law Act, specifically Section 60CA, to make orders which I consider to represent the best interests of the children who come before the Court and in this case D who is only some 3 ½ years of age. Erring on the side of caution and without suggesting that Ms C might not in all other senses be suitable to act a supervisor of time, on this occasion (although not always) without the support of the Independent Children’s Lawyer it is not the case that she will be supported by the Court in that role.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex tempore reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Burr.

Associate: 

Date:  20 April 2010