Feranti and Connor (No. 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FERANTI & CONNOR (NO. 2) [2008] FamCA 338

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time

APPLICANT: MR FERANTI

RESPONDENT: MS CONNOR

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: MS N.L. ATCHISON

FILE NUMBER: MLF 10368 of 1994

DATE DELIVERED: 18 April 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

HEARING DATE: 18 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Peter Falconer

Peter Falconer and Associates

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

COUNSEL:

Mr J.M. Bowler

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

SOLICITOR:

Ms Nicola Atchison

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Case Application filed by the father on 14 April 2008 (containing 8 paragraphs) be dismissed.

1. Paragraphs 1 to 7, and 9 to 13 of the Case Application filed by the father on 14 April 2008, (containing 13 typed paragraphs and a handwritten 14^th paragraph) be dismissed.

1. Paragraph 8 of the said 14 paragraph Case Application filed by the father on 14 April 2008 be adjourned to a date to be fixed, for the hearing of an application by the father for leave to file a contravention application in respect of the child allegedly failing to spend time with him in the April 2008 school holidays.

IT IS DIRECTED THAT

1. The father formally serve the other parties with sealed copies of the documents relied upon by him today.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 10368  of 1994

MR FERANTI

Applicant

And

MS CONNOR

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT[1]

[1]As will be clear from these perfected Reasons, this matter was determined in two parts. First, a decision was made in the face of applications for adjournment to allow the father’s application to proceed on a limited basis. After argument, judgment was delivered on the substantive application. The Reasons in each have been consolidated for publication purposes.

1. It seems to me that there are competing considerations in this case as to whether I should embark upon any hearing of the father's application in the face of an application for adjournment by both the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”). 

2. There is an existing order that would see the child of this relationship, who is slightly more than 13 years of age, spend time with her father.  It appears to be common ground that the child did not spend time with her father in accordance with that order in the first week of the current South Australian school holidays.  An application is brought urgently by the father which, relevantly, seeks to ensure that time between he and the child occurs in the second week of those holidays.  That time would commence tomorrow.

3. Material was filed in circumstances where the father indicates there were some difficulties in filing it on Monday of this week.  It seems that the solicitor for the mother and the ICL were both served with unsealed copies…