French and Wallace

[2017] FamCA 800

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH & WALLACE [2017] FamCA 800

FAMILY LAW – Interim proceeding – application for an adjournment – application refused

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr French

RESPONDENT: Ms Wallace

FILE NUMBER: CAC 2092 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 3 October 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 3 October 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Campbell & Co Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Infinity Legal

Orders

1. I dismiss the mother’s application for an adjournment.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym French & Wallace (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 2092 of 2016

Mr French

Applicant

And

Ms Wallace

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter commenced by application on the part of the father filed on 29 September 2017 and made returnable the next working day, 3 October 2017.   There was a long weekend in between these two dates.  The application by the father seeks primarily that the current consent orders that were entered into before the Federal Circuit Court be adhered to, having been advised by the solicitors for the mother that the mother would not be providing their child in accordance with the orders.  This morning leave was granted to the mother to file in Court a response to an application in a case, a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence and an affidavit prepared by the mother.  Part way through the submissions in relation to this matter the mother sought an adjournment of the case.  An adjournment was not one of the applications contained in her response as her response simply contains an application that the time with the father be suspended.

2. I have asked what the evidential basis might be for the adjournment application and have been advised that investigations are ongoing in respect of harm to B, that is, there have been referrals to the New South Wales Department responsible for the welfare of children.  As yet there is no evidence as to steps taken by that Department in response.  In the meantime B has been taken to the Australian Federal Police on two occasions, to his general practitioner and to the New South Wales police who have photographed the alleged injuries and spoken to some extent to the child, and the mother has obtained protection orders both in the Australian Capital Territory and in New South Wales.  It is notable that the affidavit evidence prepared by the mother contains a photograph of the alleged injuries and the information given to the police in support of the New South Wales Domestic Violence Order.

3. There is a lack of material within the mother’s affidavit that points to a need for the adjournment of the proceedings at this stage, notwithstanding the ongoing investigations. Given the lateness of the application for an adjournment and the amount of material that is contained within the mother’s affidavit in support of her case I refuse the application for an adjournment

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 3 October 2017.

Associate:

Date:  3 October 2017