Fontaine & Fontaine

Case [2022] FedCFamC1F 658


Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 1)

Fontaine & Fontaine [2022] FedCFamC1F 658

File number(s): ADC 2502 of 2020
Judgment of: KARI J
Date of judgment: 1 June 2022
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing –Two children born of the same father but of different mothers – Where one of the children’s parenting arrangements is not in dispute – Where there has been no time-spent between the father and either child for over 12 months – Allegations of family violence between the parties – Where the Father is facing serious criminal charges - Where it is appropriate for time spending to occur at a children’s contact service -  Where the Applicant asserts that the father is a risk to the child – Where supervised time-spending is ordered -  costs reserved.
Cases cited: Fontaine & Fontaine & Anor [2020] FCCA 3324
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 50
Date of hearing: 1 June 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Ross
Solicitor for the Applicant: Brian Deegan Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Dillon
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Cifuentes Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms Miller
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Debra Spizzo & Associates

ORDERS

ADC 2502 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS FONTAINE

Applicant

AND:

MR FONTAINE

Respondent

MS BELL

Intervener

order made by:

KARI J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 June 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9(b) of the Orders dated 8 December 2020 be discharged in relation to the child X (born in 2013) (“the child”).

2.To the extent that it is necessary the parties enrol at the Suburb Q Children's Contact Service within 14 days.

3.That the father spend supervised time with the child at the Suburb O Children's Contact Service at times and dates to be allocated by the said service on a fortnightly basis with each occasion of time spending not to exceed 2 hours, NOTING that supervised time between the father and child will be transferred to and continue at the Suburb Q Children's Contact Service at times and dates to be allocated by the said service on a fortnightly basis with each occasion of time spending not to exceed 2 hours when that service is available.

4.That upon the completion of the first six (6) visits and thereafter at six (6) visit intervals (irrespective of which service these occur at) the first respondent’s solicitor will request an observation report (or if necessary a report from each service) to be provided to the applicant’s solicitor upon receipt.

5.That the first respondent file a copy of the observation report(s) annexed to an affidavit.

6.That the first respondent pay all costs associated with the contact service and any reports provided.

7.That until further order, the father be restrained and an injunction hereby granted restraining him from:

(a)Approaching or being within 200 metres of the mother’s residence or place of employment;

(b)Approaching or being…

Continue reading Fontaine & Fontaine

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fontaine & Fontaine [2022] FedCFamC1F 658
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1F 658
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fontaine & Fontaine concerned the dispute between the parties over the arrangements for the time spending of their children with the father. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the agreed arrangements for the children's time-spending with their father, which had been largely adhered to until April 2021, after which there was no contact for over a year. Additionally, the mother was the alleged victim of serious criminal charges against the father, which were ultimately dismissed due to unsatisfactory delays by the prosecution.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the existing supervised time-spending arrangements should continue, given the prolonged period of non-compliance and the intervening events, particularly the dismissal of the criminal charges against the father. The court also needed to determine the appropriate arrangements for the younger child, considering her age and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.

The court found that despite the dismissal of the criminal charges, the history of non-compliance and the concerns about the safety and well-being of the children warranted the continuation of supervised time-spending. The court was concerned about the significant break in contact and the potential risks involved. The court concluded that preserving the relationship between the children and their father was important, but safety and supervision were paramount. Consequently, the court upheld the need for continued supervised contact, tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each child.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The arrangements for Y are however the subject of dispute.Background to the present dispute The orders for time spending at a contact service that X’s mother and the father have been able to agree are in my view, at this juncture in X’s best interests, and I am heartened that the parties have been able to agree an arrangement for her that would see X’s relationship with her father being preserved at some level moving forward. I say the words “preserved at some level moving forward” because, so far as events that have occurred in the period of time since I made the orders on 8 December 2020, significantly, a number of issues have arisen. While I will address those issues in more detail shortly, the significant issue from the Court’s perspective is that time-spending in accordance with those orders was largely complied with from the making of the orders until approximately sometime in April of 2021. Significantly, and importantly however, from April of 2021 until today, there has been no time-spending between the father and either of the children for what has now been over a year in duration. So far as the child X is concerned, the parties agree that it is appropriate that, firstly, the relationship with the father be preserved in some fashion, and, secondly, that it is appropriate that the time-spending occur at a children’s contact service. I am conscious that, when I delivered my reasons on 8 December 2020, I set out in detail why I considered supervised time-spending to be appropriate for both of the children so far as their time with the father is concerned. From my perspective, and particularly given the hiatus of time since the making of those orders, the short period of their compliance, and the lengthy period of non-compliance with those orders, it is appropriate that the supervision continue for at least the foreseeable future, because a number of other issues have arisen in the intervening period which I will address shortly. The situation so far as the child Y is concerned falls into a different category for a range of reasons. One of the reasons relates to Y’s young age; she having just very recently turned three years of age. In addition, Y’s mother is the alleged victim of very significant events which have led to serious criminal charges that are now faced by the father as identified in my previous reasons (one count each of aggravated indecent assault and aggravated assault relating to an incident which took place in mid-2020). The charges that were pending in relation to the father when I dealt with the matter in December 2020 were ultimately dismissed at a hearing in the Magistrates Court in late 2021. As best as I am able to understand, it appears that the Magistrate determined to dismiss the pending charges in relation to the father, not because any findings had been made or evidence taken, but rather the delays at the prosecution’s end had been inordinate and unsatisfactory. What I also understand is that, at the time that the criminal charges were formally dismissed the father had on foot before this Court an application filed on 9 November 2021 in relation to his time-spending with the children. I will come back to what occurred in the context of this litigation in a moment.

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.