Fadden & Sockett
[2021] FedCFamC1F 271
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Fadden & Sockett [2021] FedCFamC1F 271
File number(s): MLC12279 of 2020 Judgment of: MCEVOY J Date of judgment: 26 November 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility, for the child to live with her and to spend no time with the father on the basis of unacceptable risk which she says he poses to the child – Where the father originally opposed the orders sought by the mother but later withdrew his opposition citing health concerns which he said prevented him from continuing to participate in the litigation – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports the orders sought by the mother - Orders made consistently with the mother’s application and a minute prepared by the ICL. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 8 Date of hearing: 26 November 2021 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Meehan Solicitor for the Applicant: Leanne Cain & Associates Solicitor for the Respondent: In person Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Macgregor Barristers & Solicitors ORDERS
MLC12279 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS FADDEN
ApplicantAND: MR SOCKETT
RespondentAND: INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
MCEVOY J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 NOVEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous parenting orders be discharged.
2.The child, X, born 2010, live with her mother.
3.The mother have sole parental responsibility for X.
4.The mother provide the father with information by email on approximately six month intervals as to any significant developments relating to X.
5.There be no order for the father to spend time and/or communicate with X by any means whatsoever.
6.The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
7.All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fadden & Sockett has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCEVOY J
This matter, a Magellan matter, is listed before me for final hearing commencing 14 February 2021 for five days. The mother, Ms Fadden, seeks orders which would discharge final parenting orders which were made in the then Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 3 May 2012 and apparently amended on 13 June 2012 in proceedings (P)AYC260/2011 (“the 2012 orders”). These orders concerned parenting arrangements for the child of the relationship, X, born in 2010. The father, Mr Sockett, originally opposed orders in the terms sought by the mother.
However on 24 November 2021 Mr Sockett wrote to my Associate stating that he had no choice but to withdraw his previous objection to the orders that had been sought by the mother. His letter stated that he was aware that by withdrawing his objection to the orders sought he would be forfeiting all rights as the father of the child and he said that his decision to do so was a function of recently having been made aware of health concerns of a private and personal nature which he preferred to keep private. He said that in those circumstances it would not be right for him to continue to oppose the orders sought by the mother. Mr Sockett’s letter is set out as an appendix to these reasons.
At the mention of this matter on 26 November 2021 the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) proposed orders in the following terms (save for one typographical correction which I have made):
(1)That all previous parenting orders be discharged.
(2)That the child, X, born in 2010, live with her mother.
(3)That the mother have sole parental responsibility for X.
(4)That the mother provide the father with information by email on approximately six month intervals as to any significant developments relating to X.
(5)That there be no order for the father to spend time and/or communicate with X by any means whatsoever.
(6)That the appointment of the independent children’s lawyer be discharged.
(7)That all extant applications be otherwise dismissed.
At the commencement of the mention I inquired of Mr Sockett whether he supported the orders proposed by the ICL. He indicated that he did.
Counsel for the mother contended that it would be appropriate to make orders in the terms proposed by the ICL. He did so on two bases. First, he said the proposed orders met with the approval of the father and were uncontested. Secondly, he said that the orders were appropriate, having regard to the material in his client’s affidavit. This was a reference to the mother’s affidavit of 11 November 2020, which, though untested, was said to support the making of the orders.
Counsel for the mother referred in this respect to the fact of the father’s convictions for various criminal offences of a sexual nature involving a minor and his placement on the sex offenders register for a period of 15 years as a result of these convictions. He referred also to the lengthy history of past violence and minimisation of family violence which his client maintains has occurred, and noted that the 2012 orders were made in the face of problematic behaviour on the part of the father and the fact that they limited the father’s time with the child in any event.
The ICL confirmed that the orders in the terms that she had proposed should be made.
Having regard to the matters deposed to by the mother in her affidavit of 11 November 2020 and to the fact that the father no longer contests the making of orders in the form now proposed by the ICL, I am satisfied for the purposes of Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that the proposed orders are in the best interests of the child and I will make orders in the form provided by the ICL, subject to a small typographical correction in paragraph 5.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McEvoy. Associate:
Dated: 26 November 2021
APPENDIX – LETTER RECEIVED BY CHAMBERS ON 24 NOVEMBER 2021
24 November 2021
Attention: Associate to Justice McEvoy
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
Commonwealth Law Courts Building
305 William Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000RE: FADDEN & SOCKETT – MLC12279/2020
I am writing to inform you that it is with great personal sorrow, I have no choice but to withdraw my previous objection to the orders sought by Ms Fadden and her Lawyers, Leanne Cain & Associates, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
For reasons of personal health, I will be unable to take this matter further, and seek the courts permission to withdraw my previous objection to the orders sought by Ms Fadden in the above mentioned matter.
I must thank the honourable Ms B for her assistance and hard work in attempting to help prepare me for the above mentioned matter, and I am disappointed that I will not be able to take this matter further.
Her efforts to ensure that both parents were fairly represented in this matter were admirable to say the very least, and very much appreciated.
I am aware that by withdrawing my objection to the orders sought by the mother, Ms Fadden, I will be forfeiting all rights as the father, and chances to maintain a relationship with my beautiful daughter, X, and it is with a very heavy heart that I do so.
Given that I have recently been made aware of health concerns of a private and personal nature, for which I would prefer to keep private. I do not feel that it would be right to continue my seeking of orders in the Family Court of Australia, as I do not feel it would be right to waste the time and resources of the court any further, when those limited resources can be better directed.
I sincerely apologise to the Court, the honourable Ms B, and the honourable Justice McEvoy, for wasting their valuable time in this matter, and can in no way explain the sorrow I face in withdrawing my objection.
With kind regards,
Mr Sockett
0
0
0