Fredericks and Fredericks

In *Fredericks & Fredericks* [2014] FamCA 242, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Fredericks (the respondent mother) for an expedited hearing in a parenting dispute concerning her 10-year-old son. Mr Fredericks (the applicant father) did not oppose the application. The dispute involved a child residing in Australia with the father, while the mother resided in Country B with the parties' 16-year-old child. Previous proceedings in State C courts had resulted in orders that appeared to have not been followed, and the matter had originated in the Federal Circuit Court before being transferred to the Family Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the mother's application for an expedited hearing, pursuant to Rule 12.10A of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). This rule allows a party to apply for a case to be heard sooner, and the court may consider various factors, including the parties' conduct in progressing the case, potential prejudice to a respondent, and whether specific circumstances justify giving the case priority over others. The court was also required to consider the paramount consideration of the child's welfare and the potential jurisdictional questions arising from orders made in Country B.

Justice Cronin granted the application for an expedited hearing, reasoning that the child's welfare warranted it. The court noted that a family report had already been prepared, and the child was aware of the ongoing dispute and the conflicting perspectives of different courts. Delay would only cause further confusion for the child and prevent him from having his designated time with his mother in Country B. While acknowledging the finite resources of the court and the potential detriment to other cases, the judge found that the existing delays, the unresolved question of which court's orders should prevail, and the child's awareness of the parental conflict justified giving the case priority. The court also noted that the father did not oppose the expedited hearing.

The court ordered that the application for an expedited hearing be granted. All outstanding applications were to be referred to Justice Bennett as soon as practicable.