Drees and Haydon

[2019] FamCA 912

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DREES & HAYDON [2019] FamCA 912

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the father sought final parenting orders in his initiating application – where the father failed to attend the mention – where there have been Care by Secretary Orders made in the Children’s Court in relation to the parties’ children – where the mother submits that the Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear this matter – order that all extant applications be dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Drees

RESPONDENT: Ms Haydon

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10087 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 15 November 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J

HEARING DATE: 15 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Johnson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Victoria Legal Aid

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Kourtis, Mckean Park Lawyers

Orders

1. That all extant applications be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Drees & Haydon has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10087 of 2016

Mr Drees

Applicant

And

Ms Haydon

Respondent

EX -TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes before the Court today for further mention.  The proceedings relate to parenting matters in respect of the parties’ two children; X, who is aged eight years, and Y, who is aged five years. 

2. The parties have been involved in proceedings in this Court for some time.  There have also been proceedings with respect to the children in the State Courts.  There are a range of allegations in relation to what could be fairly described as antisocial behaviours by both parents, including allegations of substance abuse, as well as issues in relation to mental health, particularly with respect to the father. There have also been allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour by the father.

3. The proceedings were last before me in June 2019.  The father did not attend Court on that occasion.  As a result of that and of information in relation to the ongoing Children’s Court of Victoria proceedings, the matter was adjourned over to this day.  On 14 June 2019 I made orders requiring the mother to cause a copy of those orders to be served on the father, to ensure that he had notice of today’s hearing (“the June 2019 Orders”).  Exhibit ICL-2 are letters evidencing that service has been effected in accordance with those orders.  Therefore I am satisfied that the father has had notice of today’s hearing. 

4. The father was called at the commencement of the hearing at 9.35am; he did not answer the call.  The notations to the June 2019 Orders indicated that in the event that the father did not attend Court today the mother would seek to have his application struck out.  There was also a further notation that orders may be made in the father’s absence in the event of his failure to attend this hearing. 

5. Events have largely overtaken this matter in terms of what has occurred within the State Courts.  The proceedings in that forum concluded on 30 September 2019 with the making of a Care by Secretary Order, which affects both children.

   RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

6. That order was made by the Court and provides that parental responsibility for the children be conferred on the Secretary, to the exclusion of all other persons.  Both orders are to continue until 29 September 2021.  In circumstances where such order has been made, it is submitted and I accept that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain applications in relation to the ongoing or future parenting arrangements in relation to the children.  Those arrangements are now covered by the orders made on 30 September 2019.  In the circumstances, what is sought today is an order simply dismissing the applications before the Court.

7. Having regard to the history that I have described, I am satisfied that an order in those terms is appropriate. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns delivered on 15 November 2019.

Associate: 

Date:  15 November 2019