Bangi and Belov (No 4)

[2014] FamCA 936

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANGI & BELOV (NO. 4) [2014] FamCA 936

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – mother seeks adjournment of final orders – mother did not appear – adjournment refused.

APPLICANT: Mr Bangi

RESPONDENT: Ms Belov

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: SYC 850 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 27 October 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Hannam J

HEARING DATE: 27 October 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Givney

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Adams & Partners Lawyers

RESPONDENT: Self-represented litigant (no appearance)

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Berry

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Sydney Central

Orders

1. The mother’s application for adjournment is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bangi & Belov 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 850  of 2012

Mr Bangi

Applicant

And

Ms Belov

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application made by the Respondent mother in parenting proceedings between her and her former husband relating to the child, C, who is eight years old.

2. At the completion of the parenting hearing on 18 July 2014 and in circumstances where a new interim parenting regime was to commence the following day, that is 19 July, the matter was adjourned for further submissions to 22 September 2014 at this Court.

3. The mother was well aware that one of the purposes of the adjournment for that period was to facilitate the child in continuing to engage in therapeutic counselling during the adjourned period for the purposes of building his relationship with the father.

4. The father’s application in the parenting proceedings is for the child to live with him and up until the date of the hearing and throughout the adjourned period the child has been living with his mother and spending time with the father.

5. When the matter was listed before this Court on 22 September 2014 it became clear that the father, who was prepared to make final submissions in relation to the matter, was also seeking to reopen the proceedings and adduce further evidence, however, he did not have an application before the Court on that date to reopen the proceedings and simply sought to adduce some further evidence.  On that occasion the mother did not appear nor did she instruct anyone to appear on her behalf, even though as I have indicated, it was very clear from the last day of the hearing that final submissions as to the future parenting arrangements for the child and including the father’s application for the child to live with him were to be dealt with on that occasion.

6. The Court had also, I can indicate, made arrangements for an interpreter in the relevant European language to be at Court on that date, 22 September 2014.

7. The Orders from 22 September 2014 included that any application made by the mother for an adjournment for four months is dismissed (even though there was no such application before the Court) as it was clear from attempted communications that she had had with the Court that that is what she wanted to do on that occasion.  Orders were also made that the Applicant father was to file and serve any Application in a Case including any application to vary the interim orders and supporting affidavit within seven days, that the mother was to file a response by 13 October 2014 and the matter was listed for today with one hour being allocated to the application, that being the application to reopen the proceedings.  The matter has also been adjourned to 28 November for submissions as to final orders.

8. The mother also filed an Application in a Case as I understand it in relation to something in the nature of enforcement proceedings concerning property matters which had been heard by his Honour Justice Watts and orders made earlier this year.  The mother arranged for a legal representative to appear in relation to that Application in a Case which was listed for mention also today but not for hearing. That legal representative has sought an adjournment of the parenting proceedings though she is not in a position to indicate, other than in a general sense, (that she anticipates that the mother does not have financial resources to continue with the matter) but puts no other material before the Court.  That application for adjournment of the parenting matters is opposed by Mr Givney on behalf of the father and also opposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

9. In circumstances where it is clear that the mother has received the orders of the Court, it having been posted to her home address and up until a short time ago when it was indicated that she has now engaged a legal representative, she was representing herself.  Her previous adjournment, if it could have been said to be that, was dismissed and it was clear in notations to the orders that if the mother intended to obtain legal representation this should be arranged without further delay. The expectation was that the mother will be present with legal representation if she has obtained it, for the hearing of the matter on 27 October 2014 at 2.15pm. Secondly, that in the event that she fails to appear on the next occasion the matter may be dealt with in her absence.

10. In those circumstances, the application for adjournment is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam delivered on 27 October 2014.

Legal Associate: 

Date:  30 October 2014