CARROW & VINCENT

[2013] FCCA 1732

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARROW & VINCENT [2013] FCCA 1732

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parental responsibility.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Lennon & Lennon [2011] FamCA 571

Applicant: MR CARROW

Respondent: MS VINCENT

File Number: MLC 11251 of 2009

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing dates: 16 - 18 October 2013

Date of Last Submission: 18 October 2013

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 8 November 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Williams

Solicitors for the Applicant: Barbayannis Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hoult

Solicitors for the Respondent: Law 554

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Ambrose

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Kenna Teasdale Lawyers

ORDERS

1. That the applicant father and the respondent mother have equal shared parental responsibility for the child [X] born [in] 2008.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 11251 of 2009

MR CARROW

Applicant

And

MS VINCENT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings involving the one child of the parties being [X] born [in] 2008 (aged 5 years).

2. The only issue now left for my determination is that of parental responsibility for [X]. The applicant father seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility. The mother seeks sole parental responsibility to be vested in her.

3. The Court had the benefit of an Independent Children’s Lawyer at the trial of this matter which included a major issue of whether [X] should spend time with the father. The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Case Outline filed 15 October 2013 sought an Order in accordance with the mother’s proposal being for sole parental responsibility. However, by the end of the evidence and, in particular, after cross-examination of the Family Reporter who had the assistance of a psychiatric assessment of both parties prepared by Dr E, the final submissions of Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer were in accordance with the father’s proposal of equal shared parental responsibility of [X]. The Family Reporter recommended equal shared parental responsibility.

4. At the conclusion of the evidence which proceeded over two days, I made Orders accompanied by ex-tempore reasons in respect of [X]’s time with the father. The mother had proposed that there be no time. There had previously been supervised time for [X] with the father. The father proposed unconditional time in a relatively traditional regime. Orders were made effectively in the terms of the father’s proposal as it stood at the end of the evidence.

Background

1. Both parties are 35 years of age. [X] is the only daughter of their relationship and of either of them. The parents commenced cohabitation in 2004 and were married in 2007. They separated in February 2009. Family Law proceedings have continued between these parents from 2009 when [X] was just an infant. A lengthy trial was conducted in 2010 with final Orders made…