Broadbent and Higgins
[2007] FMCAfam 1145
•19 November 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BROADBENT & HIGGINS | [2007] FMCAfam 1145 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting orders – interim orders – telephone contact. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | MICHAEL DANIEL BROADBENT |
| Respondent: | ELIZABETH LANA HIGGINS |
| File Number: | BRM 15167 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 November 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 November 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Coffs Harbour |
| Delivered on: | 19 November 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | In Person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Susan Green Solicitors |
| Independent Children’s Lawyer: | Legal Aid Commission of NSW |
ORDERS
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
The respondent mother is to do all things necessary to permit the children, JAMES DANIEL BROADBENT born August 1995,
KEN RILEY BROADBENT born May 1998 and KATIE JULIE BROADBENT born January 1993 to telephone the father at a time between 9am and 12 noon on Christmas Day 2007;
The respondent mother is to do all things necessary to permit the child Katie Julie Broadbent, to telephone the father at a time between 9 am and 12 noon on 26 January 2008;
For the purpose of Order 1 and Order 2, the father is to provide a telephone number to the mother’s solicitor;
The matter is adjourned to 11 February 2008 at 10am for further mention.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT COFFS HARBOUR |
BRM 15167 of 2006
| MICHAEL DANIEL BROADBENT |
Applicant
And
| ELIZABETH LANA HIGGINS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
The application before the Court is a parenting matter which has had some litigation history since early 2006. The father is not legally represented. The mother is represented and there is an Independent Children's Lawyer.
The father seeks some interim contact and is obtaining further advice. At this stage what he seeks on an interim basis is telephone contact with the children.
The mother's solicitor, Ms Green, indicated that whilst she did not have instructions to consent to that she was of the view that her client would have some concerns and the Independent Children's Lawyer, Ms Roche, has pointed out to the Court that the father has not completed the psychiatric assessment that arose as a result of the consideration of the family report.
Prior to the lunch adjournment, I indicated that I would read through the family report thoroughly in order to be fully cognisant of the issues in this matter. This report was prepared on what is said to be 18 January 2006 but it was quite clearly prepared on 18 January 2007. It relates to the three children of the parties; James who was born August 1995, Kyle who was born May 1998 and Katie, who was born January 1993.
The Court made orders by consent on 28 February this year that the children should live with the mother. The Court made an order until further order that the mother should have parental responsibility of the children and made specific orders about the issue of time spent with the father. In particular, Order 3 said that:
The issue of time spent with the father is adjourned to 10 am on 19 November 2007 upon the father serving a copy of a psychiatric assessment provided by Dr Robert Delaforce upon each of the parties.
The orders went on to grant leave to all parties to relist the matter on seven days notice. The matter in fact came back to Court on 8 November this year and was adjourned until today for mention.
At this stage there is no evidence that the father has undergone a psychiatric assessment by Dr Delaforce. There is no copy of a psychiatric assessment prepared by Dr Delaforce available to be served upon the mother's solicitor or the Independent Children's Solicitor.
In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that both of those lawyers expressed some reticence about contact, even contact as relatively uninvasive as telephone contact. Ms Roach, the Independent Children's Solicitor, suggested that there is a variety of things which the father could do to get the matter ready for Court and that in the interim he would need to just be patient for another couple of months.
The Court will be sitting here on circuit for the week commencing 11 February. That is a period of two and a half months and it is easy to understand that the father would find that length of time without any contact with the children to be quite difficult to bear. I do not know why the psychiatric assessment has not been made available, but quite clearly that is an order made by the Court back on 28 February and there is no reason to act contrary to that.
However, there are two events, or significant dates that will occur between now and when the Court sits again in February. The most obvious one is, of course, Christmas Day, which is a day of great family significance. The next one, slightly less obvious, is Katie's birthday in January. If no orders are made, there would be no contact of any sort, no telephone contact, on either of those occasions. In my view, it would be unfortunate for those days to pass without some contact with the father, even by telephone.
The father does need to comply with the order made by Donald FM on 28 February 2007 and there would certainly be time for him to make arrangements for that psychiatric assessment to take place. In the meantime, however, I propose to make orders which would require the mother to take steps necessary to permit the children to telephone the father on Christmas Day and to permit Katie to telephone the father on her birthday, which is 26 January. The father will need to provide a suitable telephone number which can be provided to the mother's solicitor.
The children have expressed some concern, as recorded in the family report, relating to living with the father. Whether or not they have the same concern about telephoning him is a matter of conjecture at this stage but they should be given the opportunity so that the relationship can continue whilst the father undergoes the report. And it is for that purpose that I propose to make orders which would permit that contact by telephone to take place on those significant occasions.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate:
Date: 19 November 2007
0
0
1