Clancy & Alcott

Case [2021] FamCA 380


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Clancy & Alcott [2021] FamCA 380

File number(s): SYC 4960 of 2014
Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J
Date of judgment: 31 May 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – where Applicant alleged that the Respondent failed to comply with parenting orders made by consent – Finding that parties agreed to try a new arrangement subsequent to consent orders – Finding that Applicant acquiesced to new arrangement – Contravention Application dismissed.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 70NBA

Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth)

Cases cited: State Central Authority & Handbury [2019] FamCA 668
Number of paragraphs: 10
Date of last submission/s: 31 May 2021
Date of hearing: 31 May 2021
Place: Sydney
The Applicant: In Person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Shea
Solicitor for the Respondent: Broun Abrahams Burreket

ORDERS

SYC 4960 of 2014
BETWEEN:

MR CLANCY

Applicant

AND:

MS ALCOTT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALTOBELLI J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The contravention application filed on 29 December 2020 be dismissed.

2.Compliance with the Family Law Rules 2004 be dispensed with.

3.The matter be adjourned to 28 June 2021 at 4pm for Mention to enable the father to obtain legal advice in relation to his appeal rights and to consider each parent’s proposal for an order varying the father’s time with the child, X born … 2013 (‘child’), pursuant to s 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (‘Act’).

4.The application pursuant to s 70NBA of the Act proceed by way of minutes of order, to be exchanged by the parties and provided to Chambers by way of email at ..., no less than 7 days prior to the adjourned date.

IT IS NOTED THAT:

A.The child will continue to spend time with the Applicant father at the D Contact Centre in accordance with the orders made on 14 September 2020.

B.The mother intends to make a costs application having been informed by the Court that the usual practice is for such an application to be made at the conclusion of the matter after having dealt with the application pursuant to s 70NBA of the Act.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Clancy & Alcott has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALTOBELLI J:

  1. In this matter I provide the following ex tempore reasons for judgment.  This case is about a child, X, who was born in 2013.  X is eight years old.  The Contravention Application was filed by her father on 29…

Continue reading Clancy & Alcott

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Clancy & Alcott [2021] FamCA 380
Case
[2021] FamCA 380
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Clancy & Alcott*, heard by Altobelli J, the applicant, Mr Clancy, alleged that the respondent, Ms Alcott, had contravened parenting orders previously made by consent. The core of the dispute concerned the respondent's alleged failure to comply with these orders.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent had contravened the existing parenting orders. This involved assessing the conduct of both parties in light of the orders and any subsequent agreements or understandings that may have arisen between them.

Altobelli J found that, subsequent to the making of the consent orders, the parties had agreed to try a new arrangement regarding the child's time with each parent. Crucially, the court found that the applicant had acquiesced to this new arrangement. Based on these findings, the court concluded that no contravention had occurred and therefore dismissed the contravention application.

Consequently, the court ordered that the contravention application be dismissed. The matter was adjourned to allow the father to obtain legal advice regarding his appeal rights and to consider proposals for varying the existing parenting orders. The court also directed that any application to vary the orders should proceed by way of minutes of order to be exchanged by the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 4960 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MR CLANCY

Applicant

AND:

MS ALCOTT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALTOBELLI J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The contravention application filed on 29 December 2020 be dismissed.

2. Compliance with the Family Law Rules 2004 be dispensed with.

3. The matter be adjourned to 28 June 2021 at 4pm for Mention to enable the father to obtain legal advice in relation to his appeal rights and to consider each parent’s proposal for an order varying the father’s time with the child, X born … 2013 (‘child’), pursuant to s 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (‘Act’).

4. The application pursuant to s 70NBA of the Act proceed by way of minutes of order, to be exchanged by the parties and provided to Chambers by way of email at ..., no less than 7 days prior to the adjourned date.

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.