Baker and Smith and Anor

[2011] FamCA 29

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAKER & SMITH AND ANOR [2011] FamCA 29

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Baker

FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms Smith

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr Costa

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Duncan Holmes

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3563 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 24 January 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 24 January 2011

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Slade Manwaring

Orders

1. All previous orders be discharged.

2. D born … May 2003 (“the child”) live with the mother.

3. The mother have sole parental responsibility in relation to the child.

4. The mother be at liberty to take the child out of the Commonwealth of Australia.

5. Any time that the child has with the respondents, Ms Smith and Mr Costa, be on a voluntary unregulated basis and at the discretion of the child’s mother.

6. This matter is otherwise removed from the Active Pending Cases List. 

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3563 of 2009

MS BAKER

Applicant

And

MS SMITH

First Respondent

MR COSTA

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter on 29 May 2009, the mother filed an application seeking that prior orders made in this matter be discharged and that she be permitted to relocate with the child to New Zealand.  She will be moving there with her partner and the child’s four step-siblings.

2. The respondents have had orders made in their favour in relation to the child based on their previous involvement in the child’s life. 

3. I have read the mother’s affidavit and the family consultant’s report.  The respondents, I am satisfied, have had at least two documents indicating that unless they actively participated in the proceedings, then the matter would proceed on an undefended basis. 

4. On the material before me, there is ample evidence to satisfy me that it is in the child’s best interests that I make the orders as sought by the mother, and I will do so. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 24 January 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  28.1.2011