Conway and Canavan

[2019] FCCA 2457

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CONWAY & CANAVAN [2019] FCCA 2457

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – best interests of the children – interim application seeking variation of orders in light of Family Report recommendations – whether in best interests of the children to disrupt settled arrangements – whether new material is better addressed and tested at trial – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.60CC

Cases cited:

Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212

Applicant: MS CONWAY

Respondent: MR CANAVAN

File Number: ADC 4720 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Young

Hearing date: 14 August 2019

Date of Last Submission: 14 August 2019

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 14 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Temnoff

Solicitors for the Applicant: The Law Officers of Elizabeth Temnoff

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Hume

Solicitors for the Respondent: Maley Barristers & Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The children Y born … 2010 and X born … 2015 spend time with the father for the entirety of the 2019 October school holidays in Darwin with the father to pay for the cost of such travel.

2. That the children spend time with the father for three weeks during the 2019/2020  Christmas school holidays including Christmas 2019 at times to be negotiated between parties with the father to pay for the cost of such travel.

3. The proceedings are adjourned to 25 September 2019 at 11.30am before Judge Heffernan for callover and possible trial listing NOTING the parties are required to personally attend on this day UPON FURTHER NOTING it is requested that counsel properly instructed for trial attend and in the event they are not available, the file principal attend.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 4720 of 2018

MS CONWAY

Applicant

And

MR CANAVAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex-Tempore

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This is an interim parenting application concerning two children, X, who is four, and Y, who is eight years old. Y is the child of a previous relationship of the applicant mother’s but, as I understand it, it’s not in contest that these parties began their relationship when Y was only 18 months old.

3. It is clear from the observations of the family consultant in a family report that the relationship between Y and the respondent father is just as close as the relationship between X and the father, his biological father. These proceedings have largely proceeded on the basis that there is no difference in the situations of the two children, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent is not the biological father of Y. I should qualify that somewhat.

4. The mother’s proposal is that she have sole parental responsibility for…