Collingwood and Collingwood - [2020] FamCA 390

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLLINGWOOD & COLLINGWOOD

[2020] FamCA 390

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – COVID-19 – Where the mother has unilaterally ceased the children’s time with the father – Where the children are in self-isolation at the recommendation of medical professionals – Orders for the children to have video contact with the father.

APPLICANT:

Mr Collingwood

RESPONDENT:

Ms Collingwood

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Brisbane Family Law Centre

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

6830

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

21 May 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Rees J

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

A P Hodgson & Associates

THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Brisbane Family Law Centre

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

That the children, B born … 2003, C born … 2007 and D born … 2010, communicate with the father each Saturday at 2pm for up to half an hour by Zoom.
That for the purpose of Order 1:
(a) The children will use the mother’s mobile phone.
(b)The mother will, before midday on Saturday send by text and email to the father the invitation to the Zoom call at … and by email ….
(c)The children will be afforded privacy during the call and the call will not be recorded by any party or participant.
That the matter be referred to the registrar to facilitate the further listing on 21 June 2020 or as soon as practicable thereafter.
That leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to relist the matter before the registrar in relation to the implementation of these orders.
That the mother file and serve a response to the father’s application and any affidavit material upon which she seeks to rely not later than 4pm on 4 June 2020.
That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 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 parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those 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.

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

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 r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: BRC 6830 of 2017

Mr Collingwood

Applicant

And

Ms Collingwood

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Collingwood (“the father”) and Ms Collingwood (“the mother”), are the separated parents of three…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Collingwood and Collingwood

Details

AGLC: Collingwood and Collingwood [2020] FamCA 390
Case: [2020] FamCA 390
Decision Date: 21 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Collingwood and Collingwood*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the communication arrangements between a father and his three children. The dispute centred on how the children would communicate with their father, particularly in light of the practicalities of implementing such arrangements.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the specific orders to be made regarding the children's communication with their father. This involved establishing the frequency, duration, and method of communication, as well as addressing practical considerations such as privacy and the facilitation of the communication technology. The court also had to consider the role of the Independent Children's Lawyer in the implementation of any orders made.

Rees J ordered that the children communicate with their father via Zoom each Saturday for up to half an hour. The mother was directed to facilitate this by providing the children with her mobile phone for the calls and sending the Zoom invitation to the father by text and email. Crucially, the court stipulated that the children were to be afforded privacy during these calls, and no party or participant was permitted to record them. The court also made directions regarding the filing of further material by the mother and granted leave to the Independent Children's Lawyer to relist the matter if necessary for the implementation of these orders. The orders were to be accompanied by a fact sheet detailing the obligations and consequences of contravention, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED

That the children, B born … 2003, C born … 2007 and D born … 2010, communicate with the father each Saturday at 2pm for up to half an hour by Zoom.

That for the purpose of Order 1:

(a) The children will use the mother’s mobile phone.

(b) The mother will, before midday on Saturday send by text and email to the father the invitation to the Zoom call at … and by email ….

That the matter be referred to the registrar to facilitate the further listing on 21 June 2020 or as soon as practicable thereafter.

That leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to relist the matter before the registrar in relation to the implementation of these orders.

That the mother file and serve a response to the father’s application and any affidavit material upon which she seeks to rely not later than 4pm on 4 June 2020.

That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 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 parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those 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.