DITTMAR & DITTMAR (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 2518

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DITTMAR & DITTMAR (No.2) [2020] FCCA 2518

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Application in a Case to stay orders – where reasons for judgment and final orders were delivered on 31August 2020 – where orders were made for a change of residence of the child.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.60CC

Cases cited:

Aldridge & Keaton (Stay appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106

Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Myer Emporium Limited [No 1] [1986] HCA 13; (1986) 160 CLR 220,
Jennings Construction Limited v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 84; (1986) 161 CLR 681
Clemett & Clemett [1980] FamCA 90; (1981) FLC 91-013
Gronow v Gronow [1979] HCA 63; (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Trahn & Long (No.2) [2008] FamCAFC 194

Applicant: MS DITTMAR

Respondent: MR DITTMAR

File Number: BRC 189 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Middleton

Hearing date: 8 September 2020

Date of Last Submission: 8 September 2020

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 8 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms McLennan

Solicitors for the Applicant: Cranston McEachern Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Bunning

Solicitors for the Respondent: Law Legal Practice

ORDERS

1. That the Application in a Case filed on 31 August 2020 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Dittmar & Dittmar (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 189 of 2019

MS DITTMAR

Applicant

And

MR DITTMAR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex Tempore:

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally.  They have been corrected from the transcript.  Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

Background

1. The substantive proceedings involved a parenting application in relation to a young child who was born in 2017. 

2. The child’s parents were married in 2008 and separated either in late 2017 or early 2018.

3. The applicant in those substantive proceedings was the father in circumstances where there was great difficulty in him spending time with the child.

4. The mother alleged that the father had engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour with female school students in his care, that he had sexually assaulted the child, that he was addicted to pornography, that he had anally raped the mother repeatedly throughout the relationship, and that he taught this child to be secretive. The mother sought a finding that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.

5. The father alleged that the mother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child due to

   a)Exposing the child to all of the allegations relating to the father;

   b)The mother’s unwavering view that the father is a paedophile;

   c)The alleged failure of the mother to facilitate a meaningful relationship with the father;

   d)The mother’s failure to manage her own anxieties and emotions and…