EDWARDS & STARR

Case [2015] FCCA 602


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDWARDS & STARR [2015] FCCA 602
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Further interim parenting orders to restore original parenting arrangement agreed to by parties – best interests of young baby with young sibling from Father’s previous relationship – Mother having previously relocated from Canberra to Sydney – final hearing to commence in approximately 10 weeks’ time – family report yet to issue but interviews having been completed – regular dilemma for trial court to accommodate urgent applications, large volumes of applications, the efficient allocation of court resources (especially “time”) and case management considerations.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B(1) & (2), 60CA, 60CC(2)(a), 60CC(3)(b) & 60CC(3)(d)(ii)

AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Crouper & Mitchell [2014] FamCAFC NA 48 of 2014

Edwards & Starr (Stay Application) [2015] FCCA 53
Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212; (2007) 36 Fam LR 422
McCall v Clark (2009) 41 Fam LR 483
McGregor v McGregor (2013) 47 Fam LR 498
Maluka v Maluka (2012) 45 Fam LR 129
Mazorski v Albright (2008) 37 Fam LR 518
Moose & Moose (2008) FLC ¶93-375
Morgan v Miles (2008) 38 Fam LR 275
SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC ¶93-582
Shaeffer v Jacobs (2011) FLC ¶93-468
Vanzin & Vanzin [2014] FamCAFC 245

Applicant: MR EDWARDS
Respondent: MS STARR
File Number: CAC 1457 of 2014
Judgment of: Judge Neville
Hearing date: By written submissions
Date of Last Submission: 20 February 2015
Delivered at: Canberra
Oral reasons delivered 27 February 2015

Written reasons requested               10 March 2015

Written reasons provided                17 March 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Alliance Family Law
Solicitors for the Respondent: Elizabeth Fleming & Associates
Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid, ACT

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. In the absence of agreement in writing between the parties, the child X (born (omitted) 2014) (“X”) shall spend with his Father (and his brother Y) no less than two block periods per week, each of which is to be no less than two hours.

  2. Other than periods of hand-over of no more than 15 minutes at the start and the end of the Father’s time with the child, the Mother shall remove herself from the child’s presence and remain no less than 500 metres from the Father and X unless the Father requests the Mother’s attendance.

  3. In the absence of agreement in writing between the parties, changeover shall be at the Father’s residence. 

  4. The Father shall be required to telephone the Mother in the event that the child becomes unusually distressed.

  5. The Mother is to provide the Father with relevant contact details within 48 hours of the date of these orders.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.For the purposes of Order 3 above, the Father says that the Mother knows his address.

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

Continue reading EDWARDS & STARR

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
EDWARDS & STARR [2015] FCCA 602
Case
[2015] FCCA 602
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Neville considered an application by the Father for further interim parenting orders concerning the parties' young child, X. The dispute centred on restoring an original parenting arrangement, with the Father seeking to re-establish regular contact between X and his older sibling, Y, who resides with the Father. The Mother had previously relocated with X from Canberra to Sydney, and a final hearing was scheduled to commence in approximately ten weeks. A family report was yet to issue, although interviews had been completed.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting arrangements for X, balancing the best interests of the child with the practicalities of case management and the efficient allocation of court resources. This included considering the urgency of the application, the proximity of the final hearing, and the need to address the existing parenting arrangements in light of the Mother's relocation.

Judge Neville reasoned that it was in X's best interests to maintain a relationship with his brother Y, particularly given X's young age. The court acknowledged the regular dilemma faced by trial courts in accommodating urgent applications while managing case flow and resources. To facilitate the relationship between X and Y, the court made orders for X to spend two block periods per week with his Father, each of at least two hours. The orders also stipulated that the Mother should remain at least 500 metres from X during the Father's time, unless requested otherwise, and that changeovers should occur at the Father's residence. The Father was also required to contact the Mother if X became unusually distressed.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. In the absence of agreement in writing between the parties, the child X (born (omitted) 2014) (“X”) shall spend with his Father (and his brother Y) no less than two block periods per week, each of which is to be no less than two hours.

2. Other than periods of hand-over of no more than 15 minutes at the start and the end of the Father’s time with the child, the Mother shall remove herself from the child’s presence and remain no less than 500 metres from the Father and X unless the Father requests the Mother’s attendance.

3. In the absence of agreement in writing between the parties, changeover shall be at the Father’s residence.

4. The Father shall be required to telephone the Mother in the event that the child becomes unusually distressed.

5. The Mother is to provide the Father with relevant contact details within 48 hours of the date of these orders.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. For the purposes of Order 3 above, the Father says that the Mother knows his address.

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.