Darcy and Cameroon (No 8)

[2010] FamCA 581

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DARCY & CAMEROON (NO. 8) [2010] FamCA 581

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim application mother to spend time with child during period of adjournment

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Darcy

RESPONDENT: Mr Cameroon

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: J Richard Croft

FILE NUMBER: ADC 928 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 21 June 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 21 June 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Boehm

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: J Richard Croft

Orders

1. That paragraph 3 of the orders made by Burr J on 16 July 2009 be varied to read in the fourth line thereof, “first having conveyed to the father or if he is legally represented to his solicitor her concerns or”.

2. That for the purpose of implementing paragraph 4(b)(i) of the orders made by Burr J on 16 July 2009 the child … born … July 1998 live with the father from the commencement of the forthcoming school holidays on 2 July 2010 until 10:00am on 11 July 2010 and that the said child live with the mother from 10:00am on 11 July 2010 until 8:50am on 20 July 2010.

3. That for the purpose of paragraph 2 above the handover of the said child at 10:00am on 11 July 2010 take place inside the Adelaide Police Station and at the conclusion of the period of time when the said child is to live with the mother the mother is to deliver the child to her school.

4. That the Application in a Case filed by the mother on 11 June 2010 be dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

5. That pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the attached Fact Sheet.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 928 of 2010

MS DARCY

Applicant

And

MR CAMEROON

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. I have before me today an Application in a Case filed by the mother on 11 June 2010 in which she seeks orders in relation to holiday contact.  Also, the mother, as is apparent from the affidavit filed in support of this application, seeks to raise and deal with the issue of time to be spent with the child on the child’s birthday.

2. Mr Croft has correctly pointed out that this application is in breach of paragraph 3 of the orders made by Burr J on 16 July 2009 which provide that the mother is restrained from filing any further application without first having conveyed to the legal representatives for the father her concerns or reasons for seeking to bring such further application or otherwise without first having obtained the leave of a Judge of this Court.  The mother has not done that, and as Mr Croft has rightly said, it costs the taxpayer significant sums of money to convene this court and to have him here unnecessarily and inappropriately.

3. This is an injunction which has been mentioned before and perhaps I am to blame for this as much as anybody else, but it has been lost sight of over the last six months or so when this matter has been very active. I can say though that I will now be quite mindful of this paragraph because I am going to change it slightly, at the request of Mr Croft, given that the father is no longer legally represented.

4. Despite the correctness of Mr Croft’s submission about the breach of paragraph 3 in terms of this application being before me today in the way it is, I propose to proceed with it, and in discussion with the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, it seems that, there is agreement about the school holiday period Burr J’s order of 16 July 2009, and which is an ongoing order, provided that in relation to what is described as between term school holidays, the father is to have the first half and the mother is to have the second half.  I have looked at the period of time that the child will be on holidays in July and she commences her school holidays on Friday 2 July 2010 and is due to return to school on Tuesday 20 July 2010.  On my calculations, confirmed by everyone else, the middle day of that period is Sunday 11 July 2010, and the father has suggested that there be a handover at 10:00am on that day inside the Adelaide Police Station.  That is support by Mr Croft.  The mother has no issue with 10:00am.  She, though, sought a different police station.  In my view, that police station is the appropriate police station, given where the parties live.  Thus I propose to make a specific order about that in a moment.

5. The other issue, although, as I say and repeat, there is no order sought about it by the mother, but it is certainly raised in her affidavit, is that she wants to see the child on her birthday, which is early July 2010.  She says she wants to arrange a party for her.  It is her 12^th birthday.  However, the child’s birthday in July 2010 is a date when the child will be with her father, as part of his half of the school holiday period.  It seems to me that the mother can celebrate the child’s birthday with the child and arrange a party, if that is what is proposed, in her half of the school holidays.  Thus I do not propose to make any order about that.

I certify that the preceding 5 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered on 21 June 2010.

Associate