Denfert & Avron

[2009] FamCA 2

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DENFERT & AVRON [2009] FamCA 2

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Magellan – non-compliance with order

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FATHER: Mr Denfert

MOTHER: Ms Avron

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7099 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 13 January 2009

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

In Chambers

JUDGMENT OF: Brown J

NO REPRESENTATION  (In chambers)

SOLICITOR FOR THE FATHER: Alavilla Vessali

SOLICITOR FOR THE MOTHER: Lampe Family Lawyers

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Maria Barbayannis & Co

Orders

1. That the mother produce the child … born … September, 1998 to the child-minding room on the fifth floor of the Commonwealth Law Courts building, 305 William Street, Melbourne by 9:45 am. on Friday, 23 January, 2009 and the child not thereafter be removed from the child-minding room, save pursuant to court order. 

2. That a sealed copy of this order be served on the mother at her address for service and by sending it to her at her home (her previous address for service).

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 7099 of 2008

MR DENFERT

Father

And

MS AVRON

Mother

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 11 December, 2008 this case, which involves the parties’ child, a daughter born in September, 1998, was listed before me.  The mother did not appear.  Orders were made providing for the child to spend time with her father and for changeovers to occur outside the C Police Station.  The further hearing of all extant applications was adjourned to 23 January, 2009.  I ordered the mother to produce the child to the child-minding room on the 5^th floor of the Commonwealth Law Courts building by 9:45 am. on 23 January, 2009 and directed that she not be removed from the child-minding room thereafter, save pursuant to court order.  The father and his lawyer, and the independent children’s lawyer, left the building.

2. Sometime later that morning the mother arrived at the court.  As a result of information provided by her, I directed the independent children’s lawyer to make enquiries of Y Centre and the principal of C Primary School, vacated the hearing date of 23 January, 2009 and listed all extant applications before me on 19 December, 2008. 

3. On 19 December the mother appeared, represented by Mr. Crabtree, who advised that legal aid had been approved for her.  Orders were made providing for changeovers to be at a supervised changeover service, once one was available.  Otherwise contact was to occur as provided in the earlier order.  Through her solicitor the mother advised that she would deliver the child to spend time with the father on the next occasion, pursuant to the earlier orders;  in these circumstances the order requiring her to produce the child on 23 January, 2009 was discharged.  Liberty was given to seek to have the matter listed on 23 January or earlier, by application to the Magellan registrar.

4. The solicitor for the father has sought the relisting of the matter as the child was not produced to spend time with him pursuant to the orders.  It is now listed at 10:00 am. on 23 January, 2009.  In these circumstances I am satisfied that the order requiring the delivery of the child to the registry should be reinstated.  The order will require her to be delivered to the child-minding room on the fifth floor of the Commonwealth Law Courts building by 9:45 am. on 23 January, 2009 and not to be removed from the child minding room, save pursuant to court order.  A copy of this order will be served on the mother at her address for service and at her home address, to which documents were sent (and received by her) prior to an appearance being entered for her. 

I certify that the preceding
4  paragraphs
are a true copy of the reasons for
judgment herein of the
Honourable Justice Brown AM.

Dated the           day of            2009.

…………………………………………
Associate.