Fulton and Packer (No 3)

[2015] FamCA 955

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FULTON & PACKER (NO 3) [2015] FamCA 955

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Slip Rule Amendment

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Fulton

RESPONDENT: Ms Packer

FILE NUMBER: LEC 575 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 5 November 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Chambers

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: Written Submissions received on 28 & 29 October 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: Self-represented

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: MaryAnn Armstrong
Armstrong Kutz Lawyers

Orders

UPON NOTING THAT Orders were made and Reasons for Judgment delivered on 12 October 2015

IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED THAT

1. For Reasons published contemporaneously herewith, paragraph 4 of the Orders made on 12 October 2015 be corrected in accordance with the Reasons delivered herewith.

2. For the purposes of any Appeal from the Orders made on 12 October 2015, Supplementary Reasons for Judgment published herewith be read together with the Reasons delivered on 12 October 2015.

3. The Orders, corrected in accordance with paragraph 1 hereof, be provided to each of the parties in their corrected form.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fulton & Packer (No 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: LEC 575 of 2007

Mr Fulton

Applicant

And

Ms Packer

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 12 October this year I delivered a judgment in this matter and made Orders that included variation to the parenting Order made by Kent J on 29 July 2013.

2. That variation included deletion (or discharge) of a number of paragraphs and replacement of those with new paragraphs.

3. In those new paragraphs, I provided for the subject child to spend time with his father and to communicate with him only as and when the child determines. I provided for the father to communicate with the child by sending him written letters, cards and/or presents to a postal address provided by the mother. I provided that the mother is to keep the father informed of a postal address to which he can send any such letters. I also provided for the mother to keep the father informed as to the school the child is attending at any time, with the father to be entitled to obtain information from the school that parents are usually given.

4. I had said in my reasons for judgment:

   I am also satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests for the father to know where he attends school and for the father to be able to obtain from the school information that parents of students at that school are usually provided with by the school. My Orders will oblige the mother to keep the father informed as to a postal address to which he can send letters, cards and presents to the boy and as to the school the child attends.

1. Subsequent to delivery of my judgment, I was informed by the solicitors for the mother that there is now an apparent inconsistency between my Order and part of Kent J’s Order that was left in place following my Order.

2. Paragraph 16 of Kent J’s Order provided for the parents to keep each other informed at all times of their residential address and contact telephone number in addition to some other matters. My Order had not deleted or discharged paragraph 16 but had put in place the paragraph that provided that the mother keep the father informed of a postal address to which he could send letters, cards and gifts to the child.

3. Similarly, paragraph 17 of Kent J’s Order provided for the child’s school to provide certain information that might be requested by the father about the child to the father at the father’s expense and my new paragraphs also provided for the father to be entitled to obtain from the school the child attends information that the school usually provides to parents.

4. Having read my reasons for judgment again and having considered written submissions requested and received from each of the parties, I am satisfied that it was simply a typographical error not to have included paragraphs 16 and 17 of Kent J’s Order of 29 July 2013 in the list of paragraphs to be deleted from that Order contained in paragraph 4 of my Order of 12 October 2015. I also intended to replace the obligations contained in those two unlisted paragraphs 16 and 17 with the obligations contained in paragraph (4)(i) – (vi) of my Order of 12 October 2015. I did not intend that the parties had to keep each other informed of their residential addresses and phone numbers, emergency phone numbers and details of treating doctors or other allied health practitioners and the numbers 16 and 17 were simply inadvertently left out of the list of paragraphs to be deleted in paragraph 4 of my Order of 12 October 2015.

5. I now correct that error by use of the slip-rule contained in Rule 17.02(5) of the Family Law Rules 2004.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 5 November 2015.

Associate:

Date:  5 November 2015