Cudmore & Godley
[2023] FedCFamC1F 706
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Cudmore & Godley [2023] FedCFamC1F 706
File number(s): NCC 3150 of 2021 Judgment of: SMITH J Date of judgment: 11 August 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder of additional respondents – Significant risks identified in both mother’s and father’s households – Paternal half sibling and her husband seek to intervene after approach by ICL - Person concerned with the care, welfare or development of the subject child Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, s 65C Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 8 Date of hearing: 11 August 2023 Place: Newcastle by Microsoft Teams Solicitor for the Applicant: NLS Law Solicitor for the Respondents: Robert Whyte Solicitor Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Fielden & Associates - Family & Relationship Lawyers ORDERS
NCC 3150 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS CUDMORE
Applicant
AND: MR GODLEY
First Respondent
MS LENIHAN AND MR LENIHAN
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 AUGUST 2023
BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to Rule 1.31 of the Rules, dispense with the requirements pursuant to Rule 3.04 of the Rules that Ms Lenihan and Mr Lenihanfile an Application in a Proceeding and supporting documents to apply to the Court to be included as a party.
2.Leave be granted to Ms Lenihan and Mr Lenihan to be joined and included as a party to these proceedings jointly as the Second Respondents.
3.The Second Respondents file a Notice of Address for Service at the earliest opportunity.
THE COURT FUTHER ORDERS THAT:
4.The matter be listed on 6 September 2023 at 9:30 am for mention by Microsoft Teams.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Ms Lenihan and Mr Lenihan are related to the subject child and appear to be people who are concerned with the care, welfare or development of the subject child within s 65C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
B.The Second Respondents are to inform the Independent Children's Lawyer of their progress in seeking independent legal advice.
C.The Independent Children's Lawyer has applied for funding for the parties to attend a Legal Aid Litigation Intervention Conference.
D.In the event that the Second Respondents have not obtained independent legal advice before the next listing date, or the matter is not otherwise ready for mention, the Independent Children's Lawyer is to inform the Court and the matter will be administratively adjourned to allow further time.
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 Cudmore & Godley has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Smith J:
This is a complex matter in respect of which very significant risk issues have been identified, concerning the parenting capacity of both the subject child X’s mother and father.
The questions of risk are of course untested and no finding should be or could be made at this stage.
Nevertheless, in the context of those risk issues, and after having been approached by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”), the subject child’s older half sister and her husband, Ms Lenihan and her husband, Mr Lenihan, have appeared in person today. They have advised the Court that they seek to be joined to the proceedings pursuant to section 65C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) on the basis that they are people concerned with the care, welfare or development of the child, X.
I am told that the child already spends time with these applicants, who are.
Ms Lenihan is a business manager. Mr Lenihan is a public servant.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer supports the application. The mother and father do not oppose the application.
In these circumstances, where I am satisfied on the information provided to me that it would be in the child’s interests for the Court to have the option of considering Ms and Mr Lenihan as people in respect of whom parenting orders might be made, and where that is supported by the ICL and not opposed by either parent, it seems appropriate to me to deal with this on the basis of the oral application that has been made, rather than requiring a formal application in a proceeding to be filed with the attendant cost and delay.
I proceed on that basis and make the foreshadowed orders.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex-tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Smith. Associate:
Dated: 29 August 2023
0
0
0