Carlton and Kethel

[2013] FCCA 631

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARLTON & KETHEL [2013] FCCA 631

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – contravention application leading to a reconsideration of parenting orders – high conflict – long history of litigation and re-litigation – final orders made in 2008 not working – subsequent interim orders not working – children expressing view not to spend time with father – father intransigent about his proposal that children live with him – father unable to accept an outcome contrary to this position – father unable to present a proposal for the children to spend time with him – no contact.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, Part VII, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Cases cited:
Carlton & Carlton [2008] FMCAfam 440
MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant: MR CARLTON

Respondent: MS KETHEL

File Number: SYC 196 of 2007

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing dates: 12 and 13 July 2012 and 2 and 3 May 2013

Date of Last Submission: 3 May 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 3 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant in person

The Respondent in person

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Stephen W Bell & Associates

ORDERS

1. The mother have sole parental responsibility for the children [X] born [in] 1999 and [Y] born [in] 2002 (“the children”).

2. The children live with the mother.

3. There be no order for the father to spend time with the children.

4. The father be at liberty to communicate with the children, and the mother do all things necessary to facilitate such communication:

   (a)By way of letters, cards and gifts on their birthdays and at Christmas; and

   (b)By letters no more than once monthly, PROVIDED THAT the father does not in the course of such communication:

   (i)Discuss these orders, or the separation and subsequent proceedings between the parents, or any issue arising therefrom; and/or

   (ii)Denigrate the mother.

5. The mother will regularly inform the father by mail, email or SMS, and keep the father informed, about all significant matters relating to the children’s education and health.

6. Subject to the above orders, all previous orders of this court are discharged.

7. Subject to the above, all other applications before this court are dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYC 196 of 2007

MR CARLTON

Applicant

And

MS KETHEL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This case is about two children, [X], who is 14 years old, and his sister, [Y], 11 years old.  On 17 January 2011, the children’s father filed a contravention application.  As it turns out, however, by the time the matter came before the court for final hearing it became necessary to reconsider what type of parenting order was in the best interest of the children.  Indeed, the contravention application almost faded into the background with both parents, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, formulating and advancing proposals for different final parenting orders.

Background