CAMOES & BLIZZARD

[2016] FamCA 186

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAMOES & BLIZZARD [2016] FamCA 186

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - With whom a child spends time - Orders made by consent

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS - Application to enforce property settlement order adjourned

APPLICANT: Mr Camoes

RESPONDENT: Ms Blizzard

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Victoria Legal Aid

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8891 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 17 March 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bryant CJ

HEARING DATE: 17 March 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Nehmy

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Berger Kordos Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Cowin

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Robinson Gill

Orders

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT

1. That paragraphs 3 to 8 inclusive of the orders made by Stevenson J on 8 December 2015 be suspended.

2. That the children, B, born … 2008 and C, born … 2011 (“the children”) spend supervised time with the mother as follows:

   (a)Thursday, 17 March 2016 and Friday, 18 March 2016 from 4:00pm until 7:30pm supervised by Ms X;

   (b)Tuesday, 22 March 2016 and Thursday, 24 2016 March from 4:00pm until 6:00pm supervised by Ms Y at her home;

   (c)Tuesday, 29 March 2016 and Thursday, 31 March 2016 from 4:00pm until 6:00pm supervised by Ms Y at her home; and

   (d)As otherwise agreed between the parties and Ms Y in writing.

3. That prior to the periods of time referred to in paragraphs 2(b), (c) and (d) of these orders, the supervisor execute an undertaking as prepared by the Independent Children's Lawyer.

4. That for the purposes of changeover, the father deliver the children to the supervisor's home and collect the children from the supervisor's home at the commencement and conclusion of the time, unless otherwise agreed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. That all applications otherwise be adjourned to the Senior Registrar’s Duty List on 7 April 2016 at 10:00am.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Camoes & Blizzard 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8891 of 2013

Mr Camoes

Applicant

And

Ms Blizzard

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the parties have reached an agreement about the time to be spent with the mother and the children, pending the receipt of a further report from the mother’s psychiatrist as to her state of health, prognosis and capacity to parent in the short and medium term.  The matter will be adjourned until 7 April 2016, by which time it is anticipated that report will be available and the question of the ongoing suspension of orders and what will happen thereafter can the dealt with.

2. The husband has brought an application to enforce orders made by Stevenson J on 8 December which involve the sale of the former matrimonial home in which the wife is currently living.  Those orders are not the subject of the Notice of Appeal which has been filed on 5 January, which appeals only the parenting orders.  It is, in my view, clear that the father has acted perfectly reasonably.  He has given some time.  He has sought, politely and reasonably, that the mother now take steps to place the property for sale and she has not done so. He contends that the order is not the subject of any stay and there are financial pressures which, no doubt, are on both parties which mean that the sale should take place sooner, rather than later and it is the subject of an order.

3. For the mother’s part, she contends that whilst the steps taken by the father are not unreasonable, were it not for the fact that she had been an inpatient in hospital due to depression between 6 and 26 February 2016, then arrangements could have been made in the three month period which has now elapsed since the orders were made.  Through her counsel she contends, however, that really, half the time that has elapsed she has been in hospital and her discharge sees her in a fragile but increasingly robust state, but in all the circumstances, not such that she could easily involve herself in what would be necessary to have the property in a marketable state for sale. 

4. There is merit in what both parties put to me.  In the circumstances, I am not prepared to make any orders at this stage, noting in particular, that the matter is going to be adjourned to 7 April 2016 and the husband will be at liberty to raise this issue again. At that time he might well expect at that time that there will be a different outcome in the event that steps have not been taken for the marketing of the property to start at least, so I intend to just adjourn that application, along with the remaining application, to the Senior Registrar.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Bryant delivered on 17 March 2016.

Associate:

Date:  30 March 2016