BALDWIN & MERRICK AND ORS

[2018] FamCA 538

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BALDWIN & MERRICK AND ORS [2018] FamCA 538

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – where consent orders are reached between the applicant mother, respondent father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – where the children live with the mother – where the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children – where the father will spend time with the children on not more than one occasion per month for three hours at a contact centre.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Baldwin

1st RESPONDENT: Mr J Merrick

2nd RESPONDENT: Ms Merrick

3rd RESPONDENT: Mr P Merrick

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Cherry Family Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8035 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 10 July 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Hogan J

HEARING DATE: 10 July 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Biggs, Biggs Fitzgerald Pike

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Mr Anderson

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Simonidis Steel Lawyers

2ND RESPONDENT:	In person
3RD RESPONDENT:	In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Oakley

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Cherry Family Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER AS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT AND THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER THAT

1. The children D born … 2003 and S born … 2005 live with the Mother.

2. The Mother have sole parental responsibility for all long term decisions in relation to the children.

3. Notwithstanding Order 2 hereof, that the Mother be restrained from changing the children’s surnames or referring to them by any other surname other than Merrick.

4. In the event that there is a Contact Centre which is willing to facilitate supervised time between the children and the Father, including but not limited to U Contact Centre, or such other Contact Centre as is more conveniently located to the Mother as can be agreed between the parties, that the children spend time on not more than one (1) occasion per month for up to three (3) hours on each occasion.

5. The Independent Children’s Lawyer or the Mother be at liberty to provide the proposed Contact Centre with a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal relative to the Father’s convictions, the final Family Report of Ms B, a copy of these Orders and a copy of the letters written by the Father and his wife to the children which resulted in the Suburb V Children’s Contact Centre suspending their services, and to advise the proposed Contact Centre that the letters had resulted in the suspension of the Father’s time at the Suburb V Contact Centre.

6. The Father shall be responsible for all costs associated with the children spending time with the Father at the Contact Centre, including but not limited to the costs associated with the intake sessions and the visits themselves.

7. The Father deposit into an account nominated by the Mother no later than 14 days prior to any scheduled contact visit the sum of $50.00 to meet the costs associated with travel required to facilitate the supervised contact sessions.

8. The Father be at liberty to send the children cards and/or gifts on the birthdays and at Christmas and that the Mother is at liberty to ensure such cards and/or gifts are appropriate, in which case she must provide them to the children.

9. The Father is at liberty to provide letters to the children at the Contact Centre however they must be provided sealed to the Contact Centre supervisor who will then provide them to the Mother to provide to the children if deemed appropriate.

10. The Mother will advise the Father in writing every six (6) months in relation to the children’s welfare and development, including providing updates in relation to their health and education.

11. The Mother shall advise the Father within twenty-four (24) hours of any medical emergency or hospital admission involving the children.

12. The Mother and the Father shall keep each other informed of their current email address at all times.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. The original Minute of Order signed by the parties be placed and kept on the Court file.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Baldwin & Merrick and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8035 of 2011

Ms Baldwin

Applicant

And

Mr J Merrick

First Respondent

And

Ms Merrick

Second Respondent

And

Mr P Merrick

Third Respondent

And

The Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I note the lukewarm support, if I might characterise it in that way, of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, who through her Counsel, Ms Oakley, places on the record that, if the parties reached consent in relation to the issue of the children’s time with their father, the Independent Children’s Lawyer would not oppose the making of orders in the terms that have been the subject of discourse between myself, Mr Anderson and Mr Biggs.

2. I am prepared to make orders that reflect those terms by way of final order.  I do so on the basis of the mother’s evidence during cross-examination about her willingness to support the children spending supervised time with their father at a Contact Centre; and the fact that, with that evidence taken into account, there might be a prospect that a Centre that would provide such a service could be located.

3. I have also taken into account what seems to me to be established on the evidence: namely, that the Centre that had previously provided the service of supervision continued to do so after the fact of the father’s conviction for offences and only ceased to provide the service upon his actions in providing the children (or certainly one of them) or effecting the intention to provide both children by providing to one of them, the correspondence that is in evidence before me.

4. With that in mind, also, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to provide that the father be restrained from providing the children with any communication directly during any supervised time, such that any correspondence that he might wish to have conveyed to them – in the event that a Centre is found to provide supervision – occur by him providing to the supervisor the sealed correspondence;  that can then be provided to the mother and she can ensure that the contents of the correspondence are appropriate.

5. So that would also form, I think, part of a suite of orders intended to provide the children with the benefits of the opportunity to continue their engagement with their father, as reflected upon by Ms B in her most recent report; but limiting and minimising, if not eliminating, the risk that they might be the recipients of information which I think, on the evidence before me to date, is highly likely to have contributed to the very distressed state and report the mother gave evidence of that required attendance upon the children’s longstanding psychologist and/or counsellor. 

6. It is certainly not my intention to permit there to be a repetition of that, because I think that would not be in the children’s best interests at this stage of their life, and given their functioning.

7. They are the very short reasons, at this stage, that I will provide in support of my decision that such an order, which provides the children with the opportunity to spend supervised time with their father:

   a)on no more than once a month, for up to three hours, at a professional Contact Centre (if one can be located to provide such a service);  and

   b)on the basis that the father is responsible for meeting all the costs associated with that time, including the costs of any intake session required to be undertaken by either parent and/or the children and the costs of the supervised time itself;  and

   c)on the basis that the father deposit into an account nominated by the mother in writing, no later than 14 days before any occasion of supervised time, the amount of $50.00 to assist to meet the costs of any travel associated with her conveying the children to the Contact Centre,

   is an order which is in the children’s best interests in the circumstances of this case.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan delivered on 10 July 2018.

Associate:

Date:              10 July 2018