Glasson and Drover & Anor

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLASSON & DROVER AND ANOR [2019] FamCA 974

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – The principle in Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – Where final Orders were made by consent – Where the Applicant spends time with the child, but is not a parent of the child – Where the child has severe separation anxiety from the mother that is affecting her day to day functioning – Where the child is expressing strong views about spending time with the Applicant – Order for parenting proceedings to be continued.

Mahoney & Dieter [2019] FamCAFC 39
Marsden & Winch (2013) FLC 93-560

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

APPLICANT: Ms Glasson

RESPONDENT: Ms Drover

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr Pearse

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6275 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 18 December 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rees J

HEARING DATE: 12 December 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Lethbridge SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Lander & Rogers (Sydney)

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Sweeney

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barkus Doolan

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT: Gordon & Barry Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the Amended Response to Application in a Case filed 2 December 2019 be dismissed.

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 Glasson & Drover 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6275 of 2019

Ms Glasson

Applicant

And

Ms Drover

Respondent

And

Mr Pearse
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In November 2015, parenting orders were made by consent in relation to the arrangements for X who was born in 2010 and was then five years old.

2. Relevantly, those orders provided for X to spend time with the applicant. The applicant is not a parent of X but, for a time, lived in a de facto relationship with the respondent who is X’s mother. The applicant and the mother separated in January 2014.

3. The orders did not make any provision in relation to X’s brother M who is 12 years old.

4. X’s and M’s father, Mr Pearse,  appeared by his solicitor and indicated that he consented to being joined as a respondent in the proceedings but did not wish to be heard in relation to this application. He may wish to participate at a later time.

5. The relationship between Mr Pearse and the respondent is amicable and he spends time with X as arranged with her mother.

6. The mother has filed an application seeking to reduce the…