Giltson and Basfield (No. 2)

[2013] FamCA 1055

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GILTSON & BASFIELD (NO. 2) [2013] FamCA 1055

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM CHILDREN – Where the proceedings are currently part-heard – Where the father sought orders that the child spend supervised overnight time with him in Queensland – Where the child had only recommenced spending one supervised visit with the father after a period of two years – Where the child’s best interests are considered – Where the father’s application to spend extended time with the child over Christmas is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Giltson

RESPONDENT: Ms Basfield

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Coleman Greig Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3063 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 17 December 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J

HEARING DATE: 17 December 2013

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT IN PERSON: Mr Giltson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Middleton

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Ms Warda

Orders

1. That the father’s application for extended time with the child E over Christmas is hereby dismissed.

2. That Order 5c made on 30 August 2013 is hereby discharged.

3. That in the event the Director of B Contact Centre agrees and, can facilitate members of the father’s family attending time with the child E at the Contact Centre, then that is to occur in such a manner and for such a time as the Director considers desirable. 

4. That in addition if the centre thinks it appropriate and can facilitate it, after the third visit as foreshadowed by the earlier orders, that time can be three (3) hours.

5. That the wife’s costs of today are hereby reserved.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Giltson & Basfield (No. 2) 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3063 of 2012

Mr Giltson

Applicant

And

Ms Basfield

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These reasons were delivered orally.

2. By his application, Mr Giltson (“the father”) has sought that from the completion of the school term, that E (“the child”) spend Christmas holidays with him under the supervision of her grandmother at the grandmother’s house in Queensland.  Thus the father is seeking extended overnight time, albeit supervised by his mother.

3. The matter is currently part-heard before me, and it is set down for another four days to commence on 31 March 2014.  The matter has already had some four days of hearing. 

4. As the evidence developed, and largely with the agreement of the parties, given that the child had not spent time with her father for some two years, an interim arrangement was put in place whereby the father would see the child for each alternate Sunday for two hours at B Contact Centre. After three visits that time would be extended to three hours, subject to the contact centre being able to facilitate that, and that during that time the child have therapeutic counselling from Mr C. 

5. In addition, after the child had spent time with the father for three months, both the child’s therapist and Dr S are to prepare a report to the court for consideration at the hearing in March 2014 as to their recommendations for the future time, if any, the child spends with the father or whether there should be any other change to the parenting orders as sought by the father.  There was thus put in place a detailed and careful structure for the reintroduction of time that the child would spend with the father.  The arrangement was also to assist with and support the mother in supporting the child spending time with the father. 

6. What has occurred is that, for reasons which are slightly in dispute between the parties and which cannot be resolved today, there has been one contact at B Contact Centre with two more scheduled in the short-term.  Although this material came by way of statements from the bar table from the Independent Children’s Lawyer (the “ICL”) and also from the father it appears that, according to Mr C, who was present at the first contact for the period of an hour, it went extremely well, which is most encouraging. 

7. However, it is the first of the planned visits and whilst it is encouraging that it went well it is a very big step to go immediately from that to extended overnight time in a different state to a house to which the child has never been.  I do not see it as being in the child’s interests to take that significant step at this stage.  The better course, notwithstanding how well it went, is to follow the procedures and plans set down in the orders that were made on 30 August 2013.  Those orders extended beyond the time that the child was to spend with the father and the reporting back by experts, they extended to random drug testing and to the provision of documents by the father in relation to a number of matters, but particularly dealing with his employment and his living arrangements.  I am informed from the bar table that he has not complied, or complied fully, with the order for the production of documents.

Conclusion

1. The application was served upon the Independent Children’s Lawyer only a few days ago, and even lesser time upon the mother, but notwithstanding that, they are prepared for the matter to proceed today. 

2. For the above reasons, the orders sought by the father will not be made.

3. However, it emerged in discussions that family members of the father are visiting Australia from France.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer has canvassed with Mr C, the child’s therapist, the possibility of those family members spending time with the child, and he thought that that could be beneficial.  There was no opposition to that order. 

4. However, that arrangement, of course, has to be subject to the ability of B Contact Centre to cope with that request, and consequently, if that is to occur, it will need to be by prior arrangement with the contact centre and subject to their guidelines.  It would not be at all surprising that if that is to occur, the number of family members who can attend with the father at any one time would be significantly restricted, and that, it seems, would be in the best interests of the child in any event. 

5. One of the orders made on 30 August 2013, by consent, was that Mr C provide to the father and mother, in writing each month, a report summarising the child’s progress.  Mr C has informed the Independent Children’s Lawyer that he was not consulted about that order in advance, would not be able to comply with it, and if required to comply with it, would not provide the counselling to the child.  It seems therefore that that order should be discharged. 

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge delivered on 17 December 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  13 January 2014