Bauer & Steggall

Case [2011] FMCAfam 728

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAUER & STEGGALL [2011] FMCAfam 728
FAMILY LAW – Family counselling – family dispute resolution – Confidentiality – public policy – role of Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Family Law Act 1975, ss.10B, 10D, 10J, 10E, 60CA, 68LA
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
AMS & AIF [1999] HCA 26
Harkiss & Beamish [2011] FMCAfam 527
Bolton & Bolton (2010) FMCAfam 140
Roux & Herman [2010] FMCAfam 1369
Trapp & Vonne [2009] FMCfam 497
Klatzer [2011] FMCAfam 85
International Convention on the Rights of the Child
“If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride” Dr Chris Lennings Children’s Law News
Applicant: MS BAUER
Respondent: MS STEGGALL
File Number: PAC 5304 of 2010
Judgment of: Harman FM
Hearing date: 7 July 2011
Date of Last Submission: 7 July 2011
Delivered at: Parramatta
Delivered on: 7 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Heazelwood
Solicitors for the Applicant: F W Ewart & Ewart
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Shaw
Solicitors for the Respondent: Anderson Boemi Lawyers
Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Hafey
Solicitors for the ICL: Legal Aid Commission of NSW

ORDERS

Then by consent and pending further order:

  1. Ms Steggall shall within seven days provide to Ms Bauer a mobile telephone to then be provided to the children [X] and [Y] for their use and retention, and for the purpose of receiving telephone calls from either Ms Steggall or Ms Bauer in accordance with orders previously made by this Court.

  2. The mobile telephone shall be retained by [X] and [Y] for the above purpose.

  3. Each party shall do all things necessary and required to ensure that the mobile phone travels with [Y] and [X] and is switched on, charged and in credit at such times and dates as calls are to be made by either


    Ms Steggall or Ms Bauer to the children in accordance with existing orders, and –

  4. Each of Ms Steggall and Ms Bauer shall, whenever a call is received by [X] and/or [Y] on that phone from the other allow [X] and [Y] to answer the telephone for themselves and to speak with the other party with privacy and without distraction or interruption.

  5. I decline to make an order as sought by Ms Steggall in her case for the release on any basis of information by Dr B to Dr R save and except as is already authorised and permitted by order 12 of the orders made by me, 15 November 2010, and I further direct that my reasons be published.

  6. I direct that further material produced on subpoena since the first report of Dr R and any material produced by Victim Services, New South Wales be copied and provided to Dr R prior to his completing his report and if at all possible, prior to his appointments with the parties, 18 July.

  7. I release material produced today on subpoena by New South Wales Police (five bundles thereof) together with material produced by Victim Services, NSW. 

IT IS NOTED that…

Continue reading Bauer & Steggall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bauer & Steggall [2011] FMCAfam 728
Case
[2011] FMCAfam 728
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bauer & Steggall involved a dispute between Ms Bauer and Ms Steggall, focusing on the logistics and conditions of communication between the parties and their children. The matter was heard in a court in Australia, likely a family court given the nature of the dispute. The primary issue revolved around the provision of a mobile telephone for the children to maintain contact with both parents, ensuring the children could communicate with each other privately and without interruption. Additionally, Ms Steggall sought the release of certain information held by a doctor, Dr B, to another doctor, Dr R. The court had to determine whether this information could be released under the circumstances.

The court carefully considered the legal principles surrounding the welfare of the children and the necessity of maintaining clear and private communication between the parents and the children. It was decided that Ms Steggall must provide a mobile telephone to the children, to be retained by them, and that both parents must ensure the phone is operational and available for calls as per previous court orders. The court emphasised the importance of allowing the children to answer and speak on the phone without interruption or distraction. Regarding the release of information, the court declined Ms Steggall's request, permitting only what was already authorised by previous orders. The court also instructed that additional material produced on subpoena and by Victim Services should be provided to Dr R before he completed his report.

The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to court-ordered communication protocols and the limited circumstances under which sensitive information could be shared. By providing detailed instructions on the use of the mobile telephone and the handling of information, the court aimed to ensure the children's welfare and maintain the integrity of the legal process. The court's final orders, as detailed in the case, were intended to guide the parties in their ongoing interactions and the management of information relevant to the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Then by consent and pending further order:

1.

Ms Steggall shall within seven days provide to Ms Bauer a mobile telephone to then be provided to the children [X] and [Y] for their use and retention, and for the purpose of receiving telephone calls from either Ms Steggall or Ms Bauer in accordance with orders previously made by this Court.

2.

The mobile telephone shall be retained by [X] and [Y] for the above purpose.

3.

Each party shall do all things necessary and required to ensure that the mobile phone travels with [Y] and [X] and is switched on, charged and in credit at such times and dates as calls are to be made by either

Ms Steggall or Ms Bauer to the children in accordance with existing orders, and –

4.

Each of Ms Steggall and Ms Bauer shall, whenever a call is received by [X] and/or [Y] on that phone from the other allow [X] and [Y] to answer the telephone for themselves and to speak with the other party with privacy and without distraction or interruption.

5.

I decline to make an order as sought by Ms Steggall in her case for the release on any basis of information by Dr B to Dr R save and except as is already authorised and permitted by order 12 of the orders made by me, 15 November 2010, and I further direct that my reasons be published.

6.

I direct that further material produced on subpoena since the first report of Dr R and any material produced by Victim Services, New South Wales be copied and provided to Dr R prior to his completing his report and if at all possible, prior to his appointments with the parties, 18 July.

7.

I release material produced today on subpoena by New South Wales Police (five bundles thereof) together with material produced by Victim Services, NSW.

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.