Blaine and Rodelgo

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLAINE & RODELGO [2017] FCCA 1641

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application for parenting orders – hearing of separate issue pursuant to Part VII Div. 12A – whether children at an unacceptable risk of harm from father – whether children at risk of harm from mother – finding of unacceptable risk made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part VII Div.12A

Applicant: MS BLAINE

Respondent: MR RODELGO

File Number: LEC 271 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Jarrett

Hearing dates: 20 and 21 February 2017

Date of Last Submission: 22 February 2017

Delivered at: Lismore

Delivered on: 22 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Harding

Solicitors for the Applicant: O’Reilly & Sochacki

The Respondent appeared in person

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Theobold

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW Lismore Family Law

ORDERS

1. The father’s application in a case filed on 2 June, 2016 be dismissed.

2. The Independent Children’s Lawyer must file and serve within 21 days of the date hereof, written submissions as to the following issues:

   (a)Whether it is appropriate to make final orders;

   (b)Whether a further hearing is necessary; and

   (c)If final orders are appropriate, what final orders ought to be made.

3. The mother must file and serve her written submission as to the abovementioned issues 14 days thereafter.

4. The father must file and serve his written submission as to the above mentioned issues 14 days after that.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT LISMORE

LEC 271 of 2015

MS BLAINE

Applicant

And

MR RODELGO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 2 June, 2016 the respondent to these proceedings, Mr Rodelgo, filed an application in a case in which he sought some orders that these proceedings be transferred to Brisbane or Southport; that the orders providing for the children’s time with him be varied to provide for that time to be unsupervised, with changeovers to occur at a contact centre located between Town A and Brisbane or, alternatively, for the children to spend time with him at a contact centre or private supervisor located between Town A and Brisbane.  He sought some other consequential orders.

2. When that application came before me for hearing on 17 October last year, the father pressed the application principally on the basis that the time between the children and him should be unsupervised – there was no need for supervision.

3. The response to that from the solicitor for the applicant, Ms Blaine, was that there was reason to be concerned that if there was unsupervised time, these children would be exposed to an unacceptable risk of harm from the father.

4. There was much discussion between the father and me and the mother’s solicitor about whether there was a need for supervision or not, but ultimately it became apparent that there were issues of fact that were in…