Cranston & Persson
[2022] FedCFamC1F 158
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Cranston & Persson [2022] FedCFamC1F 158
File number(s): BRC 1210 of 2022 Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ Date of judgment: 15 March 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Adjournment – Where the father has filed an application for an order that neither party will cause the children to receive the COVID-19 vaccination – Where the father seeks an adjournment pending determination of Federal Court of Australia judicial review proceedings concerning approval of vaccine for five to 11 year old age group – Application dismissed Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of hearing: 15 March 2022 Place: Sydney (by videoconference) Applicant: Litigant in Person Respondent: Litigant in Person ORDERS
BRC 1210 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR CRANSTON
Applicant
AND: MS PERSSON
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MCCLELLAND DCJ
DATE OF ORDER:
15 MARCH 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s oral application for an adjournment of these proceedings is dismissed.
2.Judgment is reserved.
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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Cranston & Persson is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCCLELLAND DCJ:
This matter concerns an application by the father for an order that neither party will cause the children to receive a COVID-19 vaccination injection without the express written consent of the other parent.
In this case, the children of the parties who are the subject of the proceedings are X, born in 2011, now 10 years of age and Y born in 2013, now 8 years of age (“the children”).
The father has in these proceedings not filed any affidavit material. The father has in this morning’s proceedings made an application for an adjournment of these proceedings which by way of summary is based on the following arguments.
Firstly, that there is a case before the Federal Court of Australia which the father contends is about the provisional approval of COVID-19 vaccine by the relevant Government agencies in respect to children who are aged between the ages of 5 years and 11 years.
Secondly, it is contended that, in circumstances where the children fall within that age group, the outcome of the Federal Court proceedings will be highly relevant to whether it is in the best interests of the children to receive the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccination. Specifically, it is contended that if it is the case that the applicant succeeds in respect to the application currently before the Federal Court then it will be established that it is not in the best interest of children in the 5-11 year age group to receive the COVID-19 vaccination.
In rejecting the father’s application for an adjournment firstly, I note that the details of the proceedings are not before me. Secondly, I note that I am not in a position to consider the merits or otherwise of the proceedings in the absence of any evidence regarding the nature of the pleadings, the issues, the stage of the proceedings or for that matter, any other aspect of the proceedings. Thirdly, it is entirely speculative as to what the outcome of those proceedings will be. Fourthly, the likely duration of those proceedings is unknown.
The father contends that he has not provided evidence of the nature of the proceedings to me because he only became aware of the Federal Court proceedings during the course of last evening. Nevertheless, it remains the case that I do not have before me those details to which I have referred.
This is in the context where the wife contends that it is important for the children to receive the vaccination and the date upon which they received the vaccination is time critical insofar as the mother contends that we are still in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and in circumstances where the children received their first vaccination on 21 January 2022. They are now approaching the time where the second vaccination is due.
In my view, the matters relied upon by the father do not form a proper basis for an adjournment and I decline the father’s application for an adjournment of these proceedings pending the outcome of the Federal Court proceedings to which he has referred and I dismiss his application for an adjournment.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice McClelland. Associate:
Dated: 15 March 2022
0
0
0