CURTIS & GRANT

[2011] FamCA 681

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CURTIS & GRANT [2011] FamCA 681

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE – contravention order – annexures to affidavit

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Curtis

RESPONDENT: Mr Grant

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1992 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 1 July 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 1 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: Ms Curtis

THE RESPONDENT: Mr Grant

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That the contravention application filed 16 February 2011 is struck out.

2. That the annexures to the affidavit of the mother filed 21 June 2011 are forthwith returned to the mother.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Curtis & Grant 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 1992 of 2008

Ms Curtis

Applicant

And

Mr Grant

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application that the mother of B and C filed on 16 February seeking that the Court deal with the respondent, Mr Grant, for breaching orders that were made in December 2009.  It is fair to say that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since December 2009, most significantly the involvement of the Department of Human Services.  Not only has the Department of Human Services become involved in this case, but they’ve taken it fairly significantly seriously by taking the matter to the Children’s Court, and as I understand the proceedings in the Children’s Court, one of those two children has been removed from the mother’s care. 

2. I have read numerous pages of documents that have nothing to do with the contravention application, and I’m sure that there is some ground for the mother to complain about what is happening with the department and the Children’s Court.  But this is not a Court which can deal with those issues.  It is not the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with those issues. 

3. With James out of the picture, that leaves C.  The child, according to a letter provided by the Department of Human Services on 23 June which arrived on 30 June, indicates that she is subject to a current investigation into allegations that she has suffered abuse.  That investigation is still ongoing.  According to the letter, the department understands that the child is currently residing with her maternal grandmother.  They say it is not clear from the documentation provided to the department whether the mother’s application is for the child to reside with her.  Until the current investigation into allegations concerning the child is completed, the department will not be in a position to determine whether it will remain involved with her and her family.  The letter has a rather philosophical and almost prophetic statement about it.  It reads:

   It is clear to the department that the relationships between the adults in the lives of these children are problematic with entrenched patterns of conflict, according to the recent Children’s Court Clinic report. 

4. The department has therefore declined to be involved in the proceedings in this Court.  The only application before me today is the application dated 16 February, the contravention.  None of the material supports that contravention application, and whilst there are all sorts of other arguments going on in the conflict between the family, my only jurisdiction relates to the contravention application.  Mr Grant has asked that I strike it out, and having regard to the fact that there is no prospect of it succeeding on the basis of the material I have read, I think that is the appropriate course of action.  Ms Curtis wants me to mark it withdrawn;  I don’t think that is an appropriate course of action.  I think it is appropriate that it be marked struck out.  The application filed on 16 February 2011 is struck out. 

RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. I will release the annexures to the affidavit filed on 21 June back to the mother.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 1 July 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  21 July 2011