Frogmore and Ganderton

[2007] FamCA 764

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FROGMORE & GANDERTON [2007] FamCA 764

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – Magellan – Interim orders - Supervision

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FATHER: MR FROGMORE

MOTHER: MS GANDERTON

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5248 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 28 June 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Brown J

HEARING DATE: 28 June, 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Mr D. Smith

SOLICITOR FOR THE FATHER: Moores Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: Ms J. Brennan

SOLICITOR FOR THE MOTHER: Duffy & Simon

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER COUNSEL: Mr. Finn

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER SOLICITOR: Marshalls & Dent

Orders

1. That the further hearing of all extant applications be adjourned before the Honourable Justice Bennett and the Magellan Registrar on 31 August 2007 at 10.00am.

1. That the Department of Human Services be requested to prepare a report as to the mother’s allegations contained in her Form 4 filed 31 May 2007 and that such report be filed at this Court no later than 3 August 2007.

1. That the parties as soon as possible do all things reasonably necessary to facilitate an application for the family to use the supervised contact service controlled by G at N.

1. That there be liberty to apply on notice to the Magellan Registrar.

1. That the reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and copies made available to the parties.

1. That pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel and solicitors appearing as counsel.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5248 of 2007

MR FROGMORE

Father

And

MS GANDERTON

Mother

Independent children’s lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was before me on 8 June 2007, it having been referred to the Magellan list by the registrar on 31 May 2007.  She made an order, directed to the Department of Human Services, requesting the provision of a report about investigation relating to the mother's allegations;  the order provided for the report to be filed no later than 21 June 2007.

1. Pursuant to another order made by the registrar, the DHS file was subpoenaed, and produced.  It appears that DHS then requisitioned it back, advising that only last week, the department became aware of the earlier request for a report.  That is the reality, however distressing the delay is to both parties.  The case was then adjourned, the court being of the view that it was not appropriate to decide what contact Y should have pending the filing of the Department of Human Services’ report.

1. I did make orders providing for the parties to be assessed to use the Relationships Australia Contact Centre at N.  However, I am now advised that that centre has a policy that so long as there is a Department of Human Services investigation, it will not accept a family for supervision.  G Centre has no such policy.

1. The father has proposed supervision, pending the DHS report and receipt of psychiatric reports, by Ms A.  She has a number of qualifications that fit her for the supervision role.  She previously worked for an agency called H Centre which provides, amongst other services, supervision of contact between parents and children.  She has given evidence in this Court.  As the independent children’s lawyer said, there would probably be no objection to her were a private supervisor to be considered.  However, Ms A imposes some constraints.  She will not travel past R;  she is thus not available to go to P to pick the child up and return the child.  She charges for a minimum time period, regardless of the period of supervised contact.  That is a matter for her and those with whom she contracts.

1. The mother is opposed to supervision by a private supervisor.  Her view is that any contact should be at a supervised professional centre, in a neutral environment.  She is opposed, as is the independent children's lawyer, to any form of supervised contact at the father's home because it is alleged that that is where the inappropriate behaviour occurred.

1. Y is only four.  Two family day care workers who look after her both made police statements about alleged disclosures she made to them;  this is not a case where it is simply one parent's evidence against the other.  As I understand the evidence, one of those workers went with the mother to a general practitioner, who then made a notification to the children's protection service.  With a child of Y’s age, the police decision not to be involved, while clearly a matter at which the court will look in due course, is not at all unusual;  it cannot be seen as determinative of the allegations.

1. I appreciate the father is very, very keen to renew his time with Y.  Given her age, it is important that occur as soon as possible, if it is to occur.  I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to require the mother to deliver Y to a supervisor at R, having regard to all the factors to which I have adverted.  I accept the submission of the independent children’s lawyer that, at this time, any time with the father should be supervised in a contact centre.

1. The parties should make application to G Centre, at N.  The matter will return on 31 August when the DHS report should be available.

I certify  that the preceding
8 paragraphs
are a true copy of the reasons for
judgment herein of the
Honourable Justice Brown AM.

Dated the           day of            2007.

…………………………………………
Associate.

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as FROGMORE & GANDERTON