CARTER & GEARY

Case [2016] FamCA 90


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARTER & GEARY [2016] FamCA 90

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where final parenting orders were made in November 2015 after the mother disengaged from the litigation and advised the Court she would not contest the proceedings – Where those orders provided for the child to move to live with the father and for him to have sole parental responsibility for her

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interlocutory Application – Where the child subsequently absconded from the father – Where the father sought a recovery order – Where the mother sought new interim orders for the child to live with her – Best interests – Where there was no dispute that the child has a meaningful relationship with both parents – Child’s wishes – Where the current circumstances were predicted and taken into account when the final orders were made and there is no valid reason for those orders to be disturbed – Parental Responsibility – Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should not apply – Father to continue to have exclusive parental responsibility – Where the father’s application for a recovery order is granted – Where the mother’s interim application is dismissed

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the mother sought to vacate the upcoming property settlement trial if her interim parenting application failed – Where the trial should not be vacated

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61C, 61DA, 65AA, 65DAA, 65D, 75, 79, 79A
APPLICANT: Ms Carter
RESPONDENT: Mr Geary
FILE NUMBER: NCC 1148 of 2014
DATE DELIVERED: 8 February 2016
PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle
PLACE HEARD: Newcastle
JUDGMENT OF: Austin J
HEARING DATE: 8 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Rugendyke
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Attwaters
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Levick
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Braye Cragg Solicitors

Orders

  1. This recovery order is addressed to the Marshal, all officers of the Australian Federal Police, and all officers of the State and Territory police services.

  1. The persons to whom this recovery order is addressed are authorised and directed to find and recover B, born … 2003, and for that purpose, with such assistance as they may require, to stop and search any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, and to enter and search any premises or place in which there is or was reasonable cause to believe that the child may be found (including C Street, Suburb D, NSW).

  2. Upon recovery, the child is to be delivered to the father, Mr Geary of E Street, Newcastle NSW.

  3. These orders will remain in force for 1 month from the date of these orders.

  1. Save as to costs:

a.The Application in a Case filed on 2 February 2016 is dismissed;

b.The application for interim orders contained within the Amended Initiating Application filed on 4 February 2016 is dismissed; and

c.Any and all outstanding applications for interims orders are dismissed.

  1. The mother’s application for final parenting orders contained within the Amended Initiating Application filed on 4 February 2016 is…

Continue reading CARTER & GEARY

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
CARTER & GEARY [2016] FamCA 90
Case
[2016] FamCA 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Carter & Geary*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning parenting orders and property settlement. The proceedings arose after final parenting orders were made in November 2015, which stipulated that the child would live with the father and that he would have sole parental responsibility. These orders were made in the mother's absence, as she had disengaged from the litigation and indicated she would not contest the proceedings. Subsequently, the child absconded from the father's care.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider the father's application for a recovery order for the child. Secondly, it needed to address the mother's application for new interim orders for the child to live with her. Thirdly, the court had to decide whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should apply. Finally, the mother sought to vacate the upcoming property settlement trial if her interim parenting application failed, and the court had to rule on this request.

Austin J reasoned that the current circumstances, including the child's potential to abscond, were predicted and accounted for when the final parenting orders were made in November 2015. Finding no valid reason to disturb those orders, the court granted the father's application for a recovery order, authorising law enforcement to locate and recover the child and deliver her to the father. The mother's interim application for new parenting orders was dismissed, and the court determined that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should not apply, with the father to continue to have exclusive parental responsibility. The court also ordered that the property settlement trial should not be vacated.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

This recovery order is addressed to the Marshal, all officers of the Australian Federal Police, and all officers of the State and Territory police services.

2.

The persons to whom this recovery order is addressed are authorised and directed to find and recover B, born … 2003, and for that purpose, with such assistance as they may require, to stop and search any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, and to enter and search any premises or place in which there is or was reasonable cause to believe that the child may be found (including C Street, Suburb D, NSW).

3.

Upon recovery, the child is to be delivered to the father, Mr Geary of E Street, Newcastle NSW.

4.

These orders will remain in force for 1 month from the date of these orders.

5.

Save as to costs:

a. The Application in a Case filed on 2 February 2016 is dismissed;

b. The application for interim orders contained within the Amended Initiating Application filed on 4 February 2016 is dismissed; and

c. Any and all outstanding applications for interims orders are dismissed.

6.

The mother’s application for final parenting orders contained within the Amended Initiating Application filed on 4 February 2016 is referred to the Registrar for further procedural orders.

BY CONSENT, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

7.

The time for compliance with Order 7 made on 9 November 2015 is extended to Tuesday, 9 February 2016.

8.

Leave is granted to the parties to file and serve a supplementary affidavit by Wednesday, 17 February 2016, such affidavits to be confined to parenting arrangements pertaining to the parties’ child from 29 January 2016.

9.

The father’s costs of and incidental to this interim hearing are adjourned to the final hearing of the parties property settlement applications commencing on

22 February 2016.

NOTATIONS

A. The parenting orders made on 10 November 2015 continue to operate.

B. The trial of the parties’ applications for relief under Part VIII of the Family Law Act remains listed to commence on Monday, 22 February 2016.

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.