Cameroon and Darcy (No 3)

[2010] FamCA 735

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAMEROON & DARCY (NO. 3) [2010] FamCA 735

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Contravention Application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Cameroon

RESPONDENT: Ms Darcy

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: J Richard Croft

INTERVENOR: Catholic Education Office

FILE NUMBER: ADC 928 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 12 August 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

HEARING DATE: 12 August 2010

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Excused from appearing

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENOR: Ms Milne

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Contravention Application filed by the Father on 12 February 2010 and the Amended Contravention Application filed by the Father on 15 March 2010 be each dismissed.

2. The Application for Final Orders be listed for mention before his Honour Justice Strickland at 9.30am on 23 August 2010 in the Adelaide Registry of the Family Court of Australia for the purpose of progressing the matter to final hearing.

3. All documents produced pursuant to subpoenae from the Catholic Education Office be returned to that office or otherwise to the persons or institutions from which they emanated.

4. All witnesses subpoenaed to the hearing of the Father’s Application for Contravention be released from their subpoena and be excused from any further attendance.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 928 of 2007

MR CAMEROON

Applicant

And

MS DARCY

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Strickland J made orders on 28 May 2010, designed to facilitate the hearing of the father’s application, alleging contravention, filed on 15 March 2010.  His Honour, at that time, delivered short reasons.

2. In the course of those reasons, his Honour made it plain to each of the self-represented father and mother, that this matter would be:

   Listed for hearing in the fortnight commencing 2 August 2010.  It will be a reserved matter, and that is what I mean by my earlier comment that this matter will not take precedence over other matters which have greater priority and so it is a matter of it being in the list, but with no guarantees of it being heard at that time.

3. His Honour went on to make it equally plain that it would be necessary for the parties to remain in contact with the court and spelled out that there would be communication via a Registrar, with a view to indicating when (or if) this matter was to be listed. 

4. His Honour said:

   Thus 2 August 2010 is the date or the start of the listings.  When, in that two-week period, it will be heard, will be a matter of what happens in other cases.  I can indicate that on 14 July 2010, there will be a hearing of all matters in that list, including this one for Registrar Thomas. 

5. His Honour then went on specifically to say, by reference to the matters that I have just referred to:

   The usual process is for [the mother] to keep in touch with [witnesses] by telephone or otherwise and give them notice as to the precise day that they will need to give their evidence but that is a matter for her. 

6. The mother, who represents herself, appears today.  She is, then, plainly aware that the matter is to be heard today.  Ms Milne, who represents the Catholic Education Office, also appears today.  She too, is, then, plainly aware that today is the date upon which the matter was to be heard. 

7. I record that a Case Coordinator of this court telephoned the father at the home telephone number provided by him to the court, and received a message that the number was disconnected.  Subsequently, the Case Coordinator rang the mobile phone number which the court had for the father and it rang out with no message facility.  Subsequently, the Case Coordinator telephoned the father’s previous solicitor, who provided to the Case Coordinator, the email address that was known to the solicitor. 

8. An email was forwarded to that email address by the Case Coordinator, advising the Applicant father of the listing today.  Furthermore, a letter was sent via ordinary post on 9 August 2010, advising the father that the matter was to be listed today. 

9. This matter has had a lengthy litigation history, spanning now some three years.  Plainly, on the material which I have read, it is a matter that needs to be heard and determined as quickly as possible. 

10. The reasons of Strickland J indicate that his Honour spoke to the parties about the likely efficacy or utility of proceeding with an application for contravention in circumstances where significant issues, attend the best interests of a child who is now 12 and where a parenting trial was imminent. 

11. His Honour concluded, with, if I may respectfully say so, some exasperation, that there was an intention to proceed with the application for contravention, notwithstanding the fact that that application for contravention, would see the trial of this action, which plainly needs to take place in the child’s best interests, being delayed. 

12. To that background, should also be added the fact that the file reveals that, on other occasions, the father has failed to attend at court hearings. 

13. I have required my court officer to call the father’s name three times and my court officer has indicated that he has done so and there has been no response. 

14. I am well satisfied that the father is aware of the date of the hearing of his application. 

15. I have taken note of the history of this matter, as earlier outlined, including the earlier occasions on which the father has failed to attend. As I have said, I consider it particularly noteworthy that, on the evidence I have perused in connection with these proceedings, a trial of the substantive parenting issues, needs to take place and not be delayed by any application for contravention. 

16. In all of those circumstances then, I dismiss the Amended Application for Contravention filed 15 March 2010. For the purposes of completeness (noting that the father is self-represented), I will also dismiss the initial application for contravention filed by him.

17. I will otherwise adjourn the matter for the making of further directions necessary to progress the substantive application to trial.

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy delivered on 12 August 2010.

Associate: 

Date:  20 August 2010