FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BARRETT & PLANT | [2009] FMCAfam 417 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting – father seeks to change final parenting orders made by consent in November 2007 – preliminary Rice and Asplund issue - consideration of best interests of child – application for variation of Orders refused. |
| Family Law Act 1975, s.65D |
| EJK & TSL (No. 4)[2006] FamCA 1022 Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-215 |
| Applicant: | MR BARRETT |
| Respondent: | MS PLANT |
| File Number: | SYC 544 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Sexton FM |
| Hearing date: | 14 April 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 14 April 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 14 April 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr S. Thomas |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mcgrath Dicembre & Company |
| Counsel for the Respondent | Mr M. Wong |
| Solicitors for the Respondent | Malouf Solicitors |
UPON NOTING THAT:
(a) The parties agreed in December 2008 to changeover taking place at the [H] Contact Centre, and those changeover arrangements continue; and
(b) It is anticipated Mr Pickup’s valuation of the father’s business will be completed prior to the adjourned date.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The father’s application for variation of parenting orders made on
26 November 2007be dismissed.
The matter be adjourned to 26 June 2009 at 10.00a.m. before me for interim hearing.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Barrett & Plant is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 544 of 2007
| MR BARRETT |
Applicant
And
| MS PLANT |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ex tempore
These reasons are delivered orally.
By application filed on 10 October 2008, the father seeks to vary final parenting orders made by consent on 26 November 2007 in relation to the parties' two children, [A] aged 7 and [R] aged 5.
I am asked to decide as a preliminary issue whether there has been a change of circumstances such that the current parenting arrangements should be re-assessed. The mother asks that the father's application be dismissed because the father has not established that a change has occurred such to warrant the Court embarking on a hearing of the father's variation application.
Each party was represented in the 2007 proceedings. The November 2007 orders provide for [A] and [R] to live with the mother, and spend time with the father on alternate weekends from Friday afternoon until Sunday evening, half of the gazetted short-term school holidays and each alternate week during Christmas school holiday periods. The orders also include restraints in relation to who can be present when the children are bathing, where the children can sleep and physical discipline of the children. Orders were made for the use of a communication book, and the parties were ordered to attend a parenting after separation course and any other course recommended by Unifam. The parties are presently…
Continue reading Barrett and Plant
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Barrett and Plant [2009] FMCAfam 417
- Case
- [2009] FMCAfam 417
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered various factors in determining the father's application for variation of the parenting orders. These factors included the welfare and best interests of the child, the stability and consistency of the child's living arrangements, and the potential impact of any changes on the child's relationship with both parents. The court also examined the father's compliance with the existing orders and any changes in circumstances since the original orders were made.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the father had not provided sufficient grounds to justify a variation of the existing parenting orders. The court emphasised the importance of stability and consistency in the child's life, as well as the need to protect the child's relationship with both parents. The court was not satisfied that the proposed changes would be in the best interests of the child, and therefore dismissed the father's application for variation. The matter was subsequently adjourned for an interim hearing to address any interim issues that may have arisen.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The father’s application for variation of parenting orders made on
26 November 2007
be dismissed.
2.
The matter be adjourned to 26 June 2009 at 10.00a.m. before me for interim hearing.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.