Beckem and Beckem

[2008] FamCA 1232

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BECKEM & BECKEM [2008] FamCA 1232

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS – Recovery order

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Beckem

RESPONDENT: Ms Beckem

FILE NUMBER: HBC 1009 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 2 October 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Mushin J

HEARING DATE: 2 October 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr J. Turnbull via video link

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ogilvie Jennings

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Van Meer via video link

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Legal Aid Commission Of Tasmania

Orders

1. That pursuant to s.67U of the Family Law Act 1975 a Recovery Order issue authorising and directing the Marshal, Deputy Marshal, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police Forces of all of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia to find and recover the children J born … July 1994,  S … July 1994, H born … December 1996 and D born … September 2000 and to deliver the said children to the wife forthwith, she being the person entitled to residence pursuant to paragraph 1 of Exhibit 1 of the orders made on 8 December 2006.

2. That any Officer executing the Recovery Order pursuant to paragraph 1 hereof permit the wife to be present at the time of such execution if practicable.

3. Pursuant to Section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 a Family Consultant prepare a family report with interviews to take place on Tuesday 7^th October 2008 and give an oral report to the Court at the said adjourned hearing as provided in paragraph 4 hereof.

4. That all extant applications be otherwise adjourned for hearing by video-link between Hobart and Melbourne to the Registrar’s Duty List at 9:45am on 9^th October 2008.

5. That the engrossment of this order be expedited forthwith by the Court.

6. That liberty be reserved to all parties to apply on short notice.

IT IS CERTIFIED

1. That pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: HBC 1009 of 2008

MR BECKEM

Applicant

And

MS BECKEM

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings come before me in the Judicial Duty List by video from Hobart on an application by the father to vary on an interim basis orders that were made a little over two years ago for four children to live in the care of the mother and to spend time with the father on a regular basis. 

2. Continuing with the judgment.  Having been interrupted by the father, he, in what I might call a tirade from the body of the Court and then having walked out of the Court, has demonstrated to me a temper and lack of control which is concerning.  To his credit, his counsel effectively conceded that, while not conceding the actual orders.

3. The subject children in these proceedings are twins born in July 1994, both of them female, together with boys, one born in December 1996 and one born in September 2000.  The children, as I was saying, have been living with the mother and spending regular time with the father for a substantial period of time. 

4. The relevant order provides that the children all live with the mother, she have the sole responsibility for the day‑to‑day care and that she and the father share the long‑term care, as it was then called.  The father was to have what was then termed contact on three out of four consecutive weekends and other times.  The children went to the father last weekend. 

5. There is some evidence that at least the two oldest children are expressing a wish to live with the father and allege that the mother has physically punished them inappropriately.  Some material from at least one of the girls suggests that there may be some difficulty in their relationship with the mother's partner. 

6. However, although I had misgivings about the father and the state of the evidence such as would justify my changing a longstanding status quo on an interim basis at this stage, the outburst of the father has persuaded me that it is not in the interests of the children that they remain in his care.  They have been placed in a local school, the parties living about 80 kilometres apart.  Accordingly, at the end of the school day tomorrow the children will be returned to the mother and they will stay with her until at least the adjourned hearing. 

7. I will not make a specific order, but in the event that the Senior Registrar who will hear this matter next Thursday, by video‑link from Hobart to Melbourne, decides to change those orders that will be a matter for him.  In the meantime there will be a welfare report produced by a Family Consultant of the Hobart registry.  The interviews for that will take place on Tuesday and the report will be given by the family consultant to the senior registrar on Thursday.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Mushin

Associate: 

Date:  17 April 2009