Bletch & Douglas (No 2)

[2016] FamCA 573

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLETCH & DOUGLAS (NO 2) [2016] FamCA 573

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Enforcement of orders – Orders cease to have effect upon child attaining 18 years of age.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) reg 23
APPLICANT:	Mr Bletch

RESPONDENT: Ms Douglas

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Sydney Central Family Law, Ms Shea

FILE NUMBER: SYF 2318 of 2003

DATE DELIVERED: 30 June 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Loughnan J

HEARING DATE: 30 June 2016

REPRESENTATION:

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: No appearance

RESPONDENT MOTHER: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Handebo (agent)

Orders

1. The Court Noted that the child B born … 1998 has attained the age of 18 years and that all parenting orders of this Court cease to have effect, including the orders of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles made on 17 March 2015 which were registered in this Court on 11 November 2015.

2. It is requested that the Australian Federal Police forthwith remove the name of the child from the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. Any outstanding applications or responses are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of active cases.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bletch & Douglas 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:  SYF2318 of 2003

Mr Bletch

Applicant

And

Ms Douglas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are parenting proceedings in relation to B born in 1998 (“the child”).  

2. Mr Bletch is the father of the child. He commenced proceedings in this Court to enforce an order registered on 11 November 2015. The registered order represented final parenting orders made in relation to the child by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on 17 March 2015. That registration occurred pursuant to Regulation 23 of the Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth).

3. The orders of the Californian court were made in proceedings instituted by Ms Douglas, the mother of the child but were ultimately pronounced in her absence. The orders provided for the father to have sole legal and physical custody of the child. A finding was made by that court that the mother had abducted the child and kept his location hidden to prevent the father from finding the child and from having any contact with him. The mother was ordered to relinquish the boy’s passport to the father, and investigative agents were authorised and directed to try and locate the mother and the child to procure compliance with those orders. The father was invited to seek any further orders without notice to the mother.

4. By his Application to this Court the father sought to enforce those orders by the issue of a recovery order, causing the child to be delivered to him.

5. On 20 January 2016, for reasons given on the day, orders were made, including that:

   ...

   2.A Recovery Order issue directed to the Marshal of the Court, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the Police Forces of each of the States and Territories of Australia authorising and directing them to recover the child [B] born … 1998 and to deliver the child to the father being the person with whom the child is to reside pursuant to Orders currently registered and enforceable in this Court.

   3.The Court notes that it is anticipated that where practicable on the execution of the Recovery Order the officer or officers will be accompanied by the paternal grandfather and/or the father.

   4.The Court requests the assistance of the Marshal, the officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the Police Forces of the States and Territories of Australia to assist, if practicable, in accompanying the child and the father and paternal grandfather to the closest capital city registry of this Court to the place of execution of the Recovery Order and to await at that registry pending communication between the Manager of Child Dispute Services of that registry or his or her nominee, the father, the paternal grandfather and the child.

   5.Leave is granted to the solicitor for the father to release such address or addresses as have been provided pursuant to Commonwealth Information or Locations orders in these proceedings to a process server for the purposes of service on the mother of all documents filed in these proceedings as soon as practicable after the execution of the recovery order and it is directed that any affidavit of service not refer to the address of service but refer to “an address provided under a location order made by this Court”.

   ....

6. By way of background facts I recorded in the reasons for judgment given on 20 January 2016:

   The father is about 56 years of age.  I understand that the mother is about 41.  They started to live together in 1996 or 1997 and separated in 2002.  Parenting proceedings were started in this Court in 2003.  There were also apprehended violence proceedings. 

7. On 2 March 2016 the matter was relisted following the execution of the recovery order. The father’s solicitor advised the Court of the father’s observations of the execution of the recovery order which occurred on 20 February 2016. Ms Shea of NSW Legal Aid is the Independent Child Lawyer (“ICL”) and she reported on a conversation she had with the child, initiated by him, a few days after the execution. The Court was told that AFP officers located a place of work for the child; arranged with his employer for the child to be in a private area at the time of execution of the order and that save for some surprise for the child, the execution went well. Police conveyed the child, the father and paternal grandfather to police premises and there was a reunion/meeting for over an hour. The child said that he did not want to live with his father. However, he then knew that the door was open to a relationship with his father and he had the information and means to communicate and spend time with his paternal family.

8. On 2 March 2016, after hearing from the parties, the recovery order issued on 20 January 2016 was vacated. Some orders remained in place in relation to the child and the matter was adjourned to today, when he turns 18. The expectation was that there would be no further action by the father to enforce the registered United States order and that all orders would lapse on 30 June 2016.

9. I was struck by the care and sensitivity with which the AFP approached and effected the execution of the recovery order and from the reports provided to the Court, the officers concerned did a highly professional job. I have asked that the Court’s appreciation for that work be conveyed to the AFP hierarchy. They were supported in the initial search by police officers from the relevant State police.

10. In May 2016 an application was made by the ICL on behalf of the child to facilitate him returning to the United States for the purposes of a function at a school he attended there. Because the parents are necessary parties, through the child, contact was made with the mother. After hearing from the parents and the child through his lawyer and for reasons given on the day, on 27 May 2016 orders were made including the following:

    ….

    2.Notwithstanding any order made by this Court or registered in this Court leave is granted for the child [B] (“the child”), male, born … 1998 to leave the Commonwealth of Australia for the purposes of holiday travel to the United States of America commencing not earlier than 1 June 2016.

    3.The Court requests that the Australian Federal Police remove the name of the child from the Watch List at all points of international departures from Australia.

11. I should record again, my thanks to the Marshal and to the officers of the Australian Federal Police involved in the planning and execution of the recovery order. The mother took no significant part in the main elements of the proceedings before me but in my opinion, credit is due to the father and to his solicitor for the thoughtful and measured way in which the father approached the enforcement of the Californian orders.

12. Proceedings between the parents about the child commenced in 2003 and they have been concluded by him reaching his majority. The primary aspirations of our legislation for the child the child was that he be safe and have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

13. It remains to wish those same things for the adult the child and to note that the orders of this Court in relation to the child are of no further effect.

14. The assistance of the Australian Federal Police is requested to ensure that any remaining endorsement in relation to the child on the Watchlist at points of international departure from Australia is removed forthwith.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Loughnan delivered on 30 June 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  14 July 2016