Dickens and Dickens and Anor

[2014] FamCA 1225

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DICKENS  & DICKENS & ANOR [2014] FamCA 1225

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting – Whether an order suspending time between the children and their father should be continued – Where there is a high level of conflict between the parents – Where the children are manifesting real behavioural problems – Where an order is made that pending further order, there is to be no time spent or communication between the two children and their father. 

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Dickens

1^ST RESPONDENT: Ms Dickens

2^ND RESPONDENT: Mr D

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Moylan

FILE NUMBER: SYC 739 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 4 September 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Johnston J

HEARING DATE: 4 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Dickens  in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT: Ms Adams, solicitor of Hamish Cumming Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT: Mr Cook, counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT: Delaneys Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Moylan, solicitor of Moylan Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That Ms Graham may retain the documents uplifted on behalf of the Commissioner of Police and that it is unnecessary for such documents to be retained by this Court or to be produced to this Court at this point.

2. That the issue about submissions on sentence be adjourned to follow consideration of the father’s enforcement applications against Mr D.

3. That the Court finds a prima facie case for a breach in respect of each of the three complaints.

4. That the Court notes that the father undertakes to the Court not to file any further enforcement application until the Court has been able to complete the current such applications and that the only application the father proposes to file is a review of Senior Registrar Campbell’s Order made on 1 September 2014 in relation to a subpoena served on the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police.

5. That these proceedings, that is all applications be adjourned for directions at 12.00 pm on 16 September 2014 including the making of orders for therapy in relation to the children by Mr Q.

6. That the Mr D contravention proceedings are adjourned part heard to 10.00am 27 January 2014 and I give leave to the father to present his alleged breach at paragraph 4 (b) of his Amended Application – Contempt filed 12 May 2014.

7. That the Court notes the undertaking to the Court by the father that he will not file any further applications.

8. That the Court notes that in support of the alleged contravention on 14 May 2014 the father relies on paragraph 4 – 29 of his affidavit of 12 May 2014 and paragraph 5 – 13 of Ms N’s affidavit also filed 12 May 2014.

9. That the father file no more material in support of the current outstanding applications without leave of the court.

10. That pending further order there is to be no further time spent or communication between the children and their father.

11. That the Court notes that in the event that some supervised time might be able to be agreed as being in the children’s interests and supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the court will give consideration to such orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Dickens & Dickens 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 739 of 2010

Mr Dickens  

Applicant

And

Ms Dickens

1^st Respondent

And

Mr D

2^nd Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a highly complicated parenting matter where there is a very high level of conflict between the parents and where the children are manifesting real behavioural problems. 

2. The father is most anxious to be able to resume time spent with his two sons, B born in 2001 and C born in 2003.  But one of the difficulties is that we just have this barrage of ongoing litigation and great difficulty in being able to complete any aspect of the litigation. 

3. I feel reluctant to make orders to resume such a situation in the extremely dysfunctional circumstances of this family, without being given some guidance by an appropriately qualified behavioural scientist about what might be in the best interests of these boys. 

4. From my previous involvement with this family I know that the relevant relationships and the family dynamics are extremely complicated.  It might be that, on the next occasion, somebody is able to persuade me that it would be in the interests of the boys to resume some sort of time or communication arrangement with their father.  But, as presently advised, I am not persuaded that to do so in the very limited time available is in their interests, because I think it compounds their situation. 

5. So I order that, pending further order, there be no time spent or communication between the two children and their father.  I shall stand the matter over to 12.00 noon on 16 September 2014, and I note that in the event that some supervised time might be able to be agreed as being in the children’s interest or supported by the independent children’s lawyer, the Court will give consideration to such orders.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johnston delivered on 4 September 2014

Associate:     

Date:              15 April 2015