Collins and Ricardo

[2015] FamCA 7

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLLINS & RICARDO [2015] FamCA 7

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim application – Where the father seeks unsupervised time with his child – Where the father is a litigant in person – Where there is an appeal against existing parenting orders – Where there is insufficient evidence to address considerations in Part VII of the Act – Where the application is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VII

APPLICANT: Mr Collins

RESPONDENT: Ms Ricardo

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:              Jennifer Weate & Associates

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4959 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 15 January 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Stevenson J

HEARING DATE: 15 December 2014

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Weate

Orders

1. That the father’s Application in a Case filed on 11 November 2014 is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4959 of 2009

Mr Collins

Applicant

And

Ms Ricardo

Respondent

And

Ms Weate
Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Proceedings

1. Mr Collins (“the father”) and Ms Ricardo (“the mother”) are the parents of a child, S (“the child”), who was born in 2008 and is now six years of age.  On 12 January 2012 final orders were made, after a contested hearing, to the following effect:

   ·That the mother have sole parental responsibility.

   ·That the child live with the mother.

   ·That the child spend time with the father for two periods each of two hours on consecutive days at contact centres in City 1 in Western Australia and Wollongong in New South Wales. 

2. In October 2012 the mother relocated from City 1 to Cairns in Queensland.  The father has travelled to City 1 and Cairns to spend time with the child, in company with his wife Ms I.  Despite the provisions of the orders of 12 January 2012, the mother has never returned the child to the Wollongong area to spend time with the father. 

3. By an Application in a Case filed on 11 November 2014, the father sought to vary the orders of 12 January 2012 so as to provide that the child spend eight hours unsupervised time with him in Cairns and at his residence at City 2 in NSW.  The mother filed no Response to this Application in a Case, nor any affidavit evidence.

4. The father tendered evidence of service upon the mother by post (Exhibit 1).  Accordingly, I proceeded to hear the father’s interim application by way of submissions from him and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”). 

5. I was informed by the ICL that judgment is currently reserved in an appeal against the orders of 12 January 2012.  On 28 July 2014 the father filed an Initiating Application, by which he sought orders…