Fontaine & Fontaine (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Fontaine & Fontaine (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 662   

File number(s): ADC 2502 of 2020
Judgment of: KARI J
Date of judgment: 19 July 2023
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING – Ex Tempore reasons – Where final orders were made by consent
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 13
Date of hearing: 19 July 2023
Place: Adelaide
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Ross
Solicitor for the Applicant: Brian Deegan Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr English
Solicitor for the First Respondent: KD & Co Lawyers
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Dixon Gallasch Pty Ltd

ORDERS

ADC 2502 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS FONTAINE

Applicant

AND:

MR FONTAINE

First Respondent

MS BELL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

KARI J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JULY 2023

Amended pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) on 28 August 2023 – Order 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That all previous orders be discharged save and except for orders 2 and 10 made on 1 June 2022.

2.The Applicant Mother have sole parental responsibility for X (born 2013).

3.That X do live with her mother Ms Fontaine.

4.That the Applicant Mother do continue to enrol in and ensure attendance of X at H School unless the Respondent Father ceases payment of tuition fees for H School for more than one school term, UPON NOTING that the Respondent father continues to pay for the child’s school fees and agrees to continue to do so.

5. School for more than one school term, UPON NOTING that the Respondent father continues to pay for the child’s school fees and agrees to continue to do so.

6.5.     That the Second Respondent Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child Y (born 2019).

7.6.     That Y live with her mother, Ms Bell.

8.7.     That forthwith, the parties do engage with Ms S and Ms T to commence the intake process for the purposes of the father’s supervised time spending pursuant to these orders.

9.8.     That the parties will each do all such things to complete the said intake process in line with Ms S’s and Ms T’s instructions.

9.1  9.   The father spend time with X and Y as follows:

9.29.1 Supervised time spending in accordance with orders 3 and 10 made on 1 June 2023 with currently booked supervised visits at U Contact Centre (V Street, Suburb W) to continue up until September 2023 save and except that the visit in July 2023 which is to be moved to the morning session;

9.39.2 That there be a further six supervised sessions, at U Contact Centre pursuant to orders 3 and 10 made on 1 June 2022 commencing in September 2023 and concluding in December 2023 with such visits to occur in the morning and be limited to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fontaine & Fontaine (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 662
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fontaine & Fontaine (No 2) involved the ongoing dispute between the mother and father of two children, X and Y, regarding the parenting arrangements. The matter was before the Family Court of Australia, having been transferred from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The central legal issues that the court needed to resolve included the determination of the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, given the father's pending criminal charges, and the ongoing need for supervised contact due to the serious nature of those charges.

The court considered the significant history of the case, which included previous decisions made in December 2020 and June 2022. It was noted that the father was facing serious criminal charges of a sexual nature, and these charges were yet to be resolved. The court recognised that until the criminal proceedings were finalised, the best way to ensure the safety of the children and mitigate any risk posed by the father was through formal supervised contact. The court also addressed concerns about the willingness of the contact service to continue providing supervision and directed the parties to explore alternative arrangements.

After considering the progress made by the parties since the March hearing, the court was satisfied that the parents had reached a mutual agreement regarding the finalisation of the parenting arrangements. This resolution was seen as a positive outcome and was supported by the consent of both parties, as evidenced by their signatures on the draft minute of order. The court acknowledged the credit due to both parents for their efforts in reaching this resolution.

The court subsequently made orders finalising the parenting arrangements, as agreed upon by the parties, subject to the ongoing requirement for supervised contact due to the unresolved criminal charges against the father.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The proceedings commenced their life before me in Division 2 when I was a judge of that Court, when the applicant mother, who is the mother of X, commenced proceedings by filing an Initiating Application on 12 June 2020. There were separate proceedings commenced by Ms Bell, the second respondent, who is the mother of the child, Y, but those proceedings were ultimately combined with the proceedings commenced by the applicant.BACKGROUND The proceedings have a significant history before me, given the passage of just over three years duration. I will not repeat that history because it is well traversed by me in two written decisions that I have published: the first being Fontaine & Fontaine & Anor [2020] FCCA 3324 delivered on 8 December 2020 in Division 2 of the Court and the second being Fontaine & Fontaine [2022] FedCFamC1F 658 delivered on 1 June 2022 in Division 1 of this Court. And I am cognisant of the matters raised and discussed in those reasons which, essentially, are what has brought us to today. As set out in those earlier reasons, the father is facing very serious criminal charges in relation to allegations of a sexual assault nature as in between himself and the second respondent. I am told today that those charges are unlikely to be heard before the middle of next year at the earliest. The father is due to be arraigned in relation to those charges. Whatever the case may be, when I heard the matter in December of 2020 and when I delivered my reasons in June of 2022, I was of the firm view that until those proceedings and those criminal charges had resolved, the most appropriate protective mechanism to ensure the safety of the children and any risk that the father presents to them is through formal supervised time spending. When the matter was before me earlier this year - and I think it was in March of this year, I indicated to the parties my concerns that the parenting aspect of the proceedings were lingering and abiding an outcome of the criminal charges. I raised with the parties my concern as to the willingness of the contact service to continue supervised time spending and I directed the parties to make enquiries as to alternative supervision arrangements. While much of what has occurred in these proceedings has not been smooth sailing and the parties disagree on various aspects, it strikes me that the parties have come a very long way since the hearing in March of this year, such that the Court is now being invited to finalise the parenting proceedings. It must be said that the resolution, or the proposed resolution, of the matter today is to the mutual credit of each of the parents and they are to be commended for proposing a resolution of the matter today. I now have before me a draft minute of order with amendments made by me and discussed with counsel during the course of the hearing. That proposed order has been signed by each of the parties and that signature is indicative of their consent as are the submissions now made by each of the parties' legal representatives in support of the making of those orders.

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.