DALTON & RUDOV AND ANOR

[2014] FamCA 164

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DALTON & RUDOV AND ANOR [2014] FamCA 164

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Section 60I exemption – Party psychiatrically ill.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Dalton

RESPONDENT: Ms & Mr Rudov

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 624 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 5 March 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 5 March 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Szabo

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: M & K Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Farmer

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Stephen Farmer & Associates

Orders

1. That subject to the filing of the application for final orders by the applicant grandfather, the application in a case filed 28 January 2014 is otherwise dismissed.

2. If an application for interim parenting orders is filed, it be listed in the Senior Registrar’s list of cases at 10.00am on 7 April 2014.

3. That the applicant grandfather has leave to file the said application seeking substantive parenting orders without requirement to file a certificate under s 60I of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

4. That the reasons this day be transcribed and be placed on the court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Dalton & Rudov and Anor 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 624 of 2014

Mr Dalton

Applicant

And

Ms & Mr Rudov

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 28 January 2014, Mr Dalton filed an application in a case supported by an affidavit.  The application only sought that he be able to file an application and affidavit seeking parenting orders without the obligation under s 69(7) to file a certificate in relation to attending a family dispute resolution practitioner.  It is common ground that this is a case in which the exceptions set out in s 69(9) should apply, and the specific provision that is relevant is:

   (e) where one or more of the parties to the proceedings is unable to participate effectively in that family dispute resolution. 

2. It seems that the mother of the child has had some psychiatric difficulties but obtained from her medical practitioners, specific permission to attend upon Mr O. It would otherwise be difficult for her to go through the normal processes of attending a family dispute resolution practitioner. I am satisfied that the provisions of subs (9) are satisfied, and the applicant may file an application seeking substantive parenting orders without the requirement to file a certificate under s 60I.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 5 March 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  24 March 2014