FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CARDUS & LAVRICK | [2020] FamCA 579 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – allocation of parental responsibility – spend time arrangements for child – where the father seeks shared parental responsibility, weekend time and telephone contact with the child – where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility and that the father have no contact with the child – where the child has certain disabilities – where the father has not spent time with the child for three years – allegations of family violence against the father – family violence intervention order between the father and mother – where there is significant medical evidence of the harm caused to the child by even the possibility of contact with her father – where the child has strongly held views that she does not want any contact with her father – where it is found that it is not in the best interest of the child to have orders which seek to foster a meaningful relationship with her father – orders made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the child, for the child to have no time and no contact with the father, for the child to be removed from the Airport Watch List, for the requirement that the father consent to the child obtaining a passport be dispensed with and an order pursuant to s64B(2)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 restraining the father from making further application without leave of the Court – whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made against the father on the application of the mother pursuant to s 102QB of Family Law Act1975 – Where it is found that the father has not frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings – application pursuant to s 102QB dismissed |
| Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Act 2012 (Cth) Australian Constitution s 116 |
| Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2016) 259 CLR 662 Fokas v Mansfield as Trustee for the Bankrupt Estate of Maria Fokas (No. 2) [2020] FCA 30 Fuller v Toms 234 FCR 535 |
Continue reading Cardus & Lavrick
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cardus & Lavrick [2020] FamCA 579
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 579
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the child's welfare, including the allocation of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the extent of contact, if any, between the child and the father. The court also considered the need for protective orders to prevent unwanted contact and the father's ability to make future applications concerning the child.
McEvoy J made extensive orders, discharging all previous parenting orders. The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, that the child live with the mother, and that the child have no contact with the father. The father was also restrained from contacting the mother or the child by any means and prohibited from attending at the child's home, school, or extracurricular activities. While significantly restricting direct contact, the orders permitted limited indirect communication, such as the father sending letters or cards via a third party, and the mother providing the father with a photograph of the child annually. The court also addressed passport and visa matters, discharged previous travel restrictions, and requested the Australian Federal Police remove the child from the Airport Watch List. Furthermore, the father was restrained from making future applications under Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) without first obtaining leave of the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
All previous parenting orders be discharged.
2.
The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, X (the child), born … 2006.
3.
The child live with the mother, Ms Lavrick.
4.
The child have no contact with the father, Mr Cardus.
5.
Save as provided for in these orders, the father, his servants and agents be hereby restrained from contacting the mother or the child by any means whatsoever, including telephone, internet and passing gifts or messages via third parties.
6.
The father be prohibited from contacting or attending at the child’s home, school or any place where she is involved in extracurricular activities or recreation.
7.
A copy of these orders be provided to the child’s school.
8.
The mother authorise the child’s school to provide directly to the father copies of the child’s school reports as and when such reports become available.
9.
Around the time of the child’s birthday each year until she attains the age of 18 years, the mother is to provide the father with a photograph of the child via a third party.
10.
The father be permitted to send the child a letter or card on four occasions in each calendar year via a third party, the letters or cards be opened by the mother and only provided to the child if the mother considers it appropriate to do so.
11.
The mother be and is hereby authorised to do all acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary to ensure that the child has a current Australian Passport from time to time, as well as any necessary visa for travel, and the consent of the father shall not be required.
12.
The orders made by Judge Riley in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dated 11 February 2019 restraining the removal of X, female, born on … 2006 from the Commonwealth of Australia is hereby discharged AND THE COURT REQUESTS THAT the Australian Federal Police remove the child’s name from the Airport Watch List at all points of international arrivals and departures in Australia.
13.
As soon as practicable the Court forward a copy of this order to the Australian Federal Police.
14.
The mother be at liberty to cause a copy of the Family Report of Mr B dated 8 April 2019 to be provided to the child’s treating professionals (including any such professionals appointed after the making of these orders).
15.
The father keep the mother informed about his current residential address and contact details via a third party.
16.
Pursuant to s 64B(2)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act), the father be restrained from making any application under Part VII of the Act in relation to the child X born … 2006 without first making an ex-parte application seeking and obtaining leave of a Judge of the Family Court of Australia and for that purpose:
(a) the father must file an application setting out the specific orders sought and an affidavit setting out the evidence and reasons for seeking such orders;
(b) unless otherwise ordered, such application is not to be served on the mother or any other person.
17.
The father file and serve written submissions on the question of costs by 4.00 pm on 24 August 2020.
18.
Should she wish to do so, the mother file and serve written submissions in reply to the father’s written submissions on the question of costs by 4.00 pm on 31 August 2020.
19.
The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged within 30 days from the date of this order.
20.
That save for the mother’s application for costs, all extant applications be otherwise dismissed.
21.
Pursuant to sections 62B and 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.