Behn & Ziomek

[2015] FamCA 1185

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BEHN & ZIOMEK [2015] FamCA 1185

FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – CONTRAVENTION – Where the father alleges the mother breached an order requiring the parties to provide information in relation to the child’s past and present medical practitioners and treatments – Where the Court is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the contravention is established – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VII, ss 70NAC, 70NAF, 70NCB

APPLICANT: Mr Behn

RESPONDENT: Ms Ziomek

FILE NUMBER: NCC 5 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 7 December 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: McClelland J

HEARING DATE: 7 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Behn in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lowe

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Swifte Law

Orders

1. The applicant father’s Application in a Case filed 5 March 2015 is dismissed.

2. The applicant father is to pay the respondent mother’s costs of today on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Behn & Ziomek 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: NCC 5 of 2014

Mr Behn

Applicant

And

Ms Ziomek

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings concern an application for the imposition of a penalty as a result of an alleged contravention of orders filed by Mr Behn (“the father”) on 5 March 2015.  The respondent is Ms Ziomek (“the mother”).  The father alleges that the mother contravened an order made by the Court on 12 November 2014. The alleged contravention is particularised as follows:

   Letter dated 19 November – Respondant (sic) letter to ICL and Applicant regarding all medical treating providers. The respondant (sic) has not complied with orders dated 12 November and not provide all parties all medical treating practitioner details as per the subpoena medicare and not provide copies of all specialist reports.

2. The order which required the parties to provide details of such medical treatment providers was Order 2 of the orders made on 12 November 2014.

3. The father was self-represented and the mother was represented by Mr Lowe of counsel instructed by Swifte Law. 

4. The background to this matter is set out in the judgment of Cleary J dated 25 February 2014.[1]  That background is that:

   6. … these parties met in Sydney in 2007 when the mother was 19 and the father 29. They married and began living together in Melbourne, where they lived for about five year. The father suffered a back injury during that time and, it is alleged, started to suffer from depression.

   7. The child, [L] was born [in] 2012 in Melbourne. After his birth, both parents were involved in his care. The mother returned to work doing two six hour shifts a week and at that time, the father cared for the child. …

   8. In June 2013, the mother travelled…