Boston and Boston (No. 2)

[2014] FamCA 414

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BOSTON & BOSTON (NO. 2) [2014] FamCA 414

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Order – father sought orders permitting him to take the child on an overseas holiday – father made an oral application seeking similar orders on previous occasion – poor relationship between the parties – risk child would not be returned to Australia – best interests of the child – father’s application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Boston

RESPONDENT:	Ms Boston
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Mr Croft

FILE NUMBER: ADC 1946 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 13 June 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Dawe J

HEARING DATE: 13 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: N/A

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	In Person
COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Mr Croft

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: J Richard Croft

Orders

1. The Application in a Case filed by the husband on 10 June 2014 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Boston & Boston (No. 2) 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 ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER:  ADC 1946 of 2012

Mr Boston

Applicant

And

Ms Boston

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Application in a Case which was filed on 10 June 2014 has been listed before me today because the First Day Hearing was also listed before me today. 

2. The Application in a Case filed by the unrepresented husband, seeks leave for R, (“the child”) who was born in 2002 and is not quite 12 years old, to be permitted to travel with the husband to North America departing on 27 June 2014 and returning on 8 August 2014 and ancillary orders releasing or discharging the orders which were in place preventing the removal of the child from Australia.

3. The affidavit which was filed in support of that application consists of 11 pages but does not have appropriate paragraph numbers making it difficult to refer to the material.  What is clear from the affidavit however is that the extremely difficult relationship between the wife and husband concerning the child is continuing.  The affidavit itself may well be said to highlight the inability of the parties to deal with each other as would normally be the case for parents of children such as the young child.

4. On the previous occasion when the matter was before me by way of oral application I heard the opposition from the wife.

5. The primary concern is, and remains, the risk that the child would not be returned to Australia. 

6. In the affidavit material the husband now proposes his brother as guarantor.  He asserts that the wife controls all the assets in Australia, however on an interim basis I cannot draw conclusions about the assets of the parties. 

7. I take into account (what is clear on the papers before me) the extremely difficult relationship between the wife and the husband.  

8. The provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) require that I consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.  Whilst there may be some benefit to the child travelling overseas and visiting the husband’s new partner’s relatives, there remain concerns to be determined when the matter is finally heard as to the best interests of the child.  There remains the ongoing risk, notwithstanding the information now provided by the husband, that the child might not be returned.

9. I am therefore satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child, on an interim basis, that the application filed by the husband be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dawe delivered on 13 June 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  19 June 2014