DUFFY & GOMES (No.2)

Case [2015] FCCA 1757


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DUFFY & GOMES (No.2) [2015] FCCA 1757

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – future care arrangements – best interests of the child – child’s right to a voice in the proceedings – child’s right to participation in the proceedings – where the children meet directly with the Judge – consideration of “cautions” regarding meeting with children – circumstances of settlement where proceedings previously adjourned part heard due to non-preparation – objection to subpoena – discussion of “privacy” – discussion of “public policy” – determination of parental responsibility – issue of passports.

FAMILY LAW – Costs – costs of Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Legislation: 

Family Law Act 1975, ss.10D, 10E, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61C, 65DAA, 68LA, 69ZN, 69ZV, 69ZX, 106A, 117
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.17A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s.126B
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.55, 131
Judiciary Act 1903
International Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Australian Passports Act 2005, s.11

Duffy & Gomes (No.1) [2015] FCCA 1121
Cooper & Cooper [2012] FMCAfam 789
Kirby & Kirby [2014] FCCA 2332
Jermyn & Carling [2012] FMCAfam 814

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Maman [2012] FCAFC 13
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1963] HCA 41
Kioa v (omitted)West [1985] HCA 81
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 72
Canterbury Building Society Ltd v Baker [1979] 2 NSWLR 265
Ansell v Wells [1982] FCA 186
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 41
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11
Bauer & Steggall [2011] FMCAfam 728

Feinster & Feinster and Anor [2006] FamCA 232
Benson & Hughes (1994) FLC 92-483
Sankey & Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1
Re Bell; Ex parte Lees (1980) 146 CLR 141
Hutchings & Clarke (1993) FLC 92-373
Duits & Duits 2006 CanLII 14407

Mellish v Martinson 1993 CanLII 1825
R v JT 2005 CanLII 51120

R v SLR 1991 CanLII 4532
Baker v. Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52
D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171
Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No 2) [1974] AC 405
R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 166
Royal Women’s Hospital v Medical Practitioners Board [2005] VSC 225

Elkins v United States, 364 U.S. 206, 234 (1960)
R v Gruenke (1991) CanLII 40
AG v Mulholland; AG V Foster [1963] 2 QB 477; (1963) 1 All ER 767
R v Pain 1 WLR 67
Sykes v DPP [1962] AC 528
Cook v Carol (1945) 1 R 515
McTaggert v McTaggert [1948] P 94
Henly v Henly [1955] P 202
G v G [1964] 1 OR 361
D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1977] 1 All ER 589
R v RJS 45 CR (3rd) 161
Sali v SPC Ltd [1993] HCA 47

Continue reading DUFFY & GOMES (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DUFFY & GOMES (No.2) [2015] FCCA 1757
Case
[2015] FCCA 1757
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of DUFFY & GOMES (No.2), Judge Harman of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting arrangements for the children, X and Y. The dispute concerned the future care of the children, their best interests, and their right to participate in proceedings, including the potential for direct meetings with the judge. The court also addressed issues relating to the objection to a subpoena, privacy, public policy, parental responsibility, and the issue of passports.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of parental responsibility, specifically concerning the children's passports, and the costs associated with the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court was required to consider the children's right to have their voice heard and participate in the proceedings, as well as the implications of direct meetings between the children and the judge, including any relevant cautions.

By consent, final orders were made in accordance with the Terms of Settlement executed by the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Ms Duffy was granted sole parental responsibility for any application for Australian Passports for the children, and upon their issue, she was entitled to hold them on their behalf until they reached majority. The court also requested that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship expedite the processing of any passport application made by Ms Duffy. The Independent Children's Lawyer was directed to provide a typescript of the Terms of Settlement to the court's associate within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

By consent final Orders are made in accordance with the Terms of Settlement executed by the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer marked Exhibit ‘A’ attached hereto.

2.

Direct the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide a typescript of the Terms of Settlement made today in word format direct to my Associate by email within 7 days of today’s date.

3.

Ms Duffy shall have sole parental responsibility for any application for the issue of Australian Passports for the children X born (omitted) 2000 and Y born (omitted) 2001 and upon the issue of such passports Ms Duffy shall be entitled until X and Y each reach their majority to hold those passports on their behalf.

4.

The Court requests that the appropriate officer of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship seized with responsibility for processing any application for Passports give such expedition to the processing of any application made by Ms Duffy as can be accommodated.

5.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.