Goldman and Goldman (No 3)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOLDMAN & GOLDMAN (NO. 3) [2017] FamCA 677

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Application for an adjournment on first day of hearing– Where there is an active JIRT investigation of the father  – Where the mother seeks an adjournment until the JIRT investigation has concluded – Where the single expert report indicates a change of residence should be considered, depending on the truthfulness of the mother’s allegations - Concluded there is urgency and a need for the examination of all issues – Ordered the adjournment application is dismissed

Vasser & Taylor-Black [2007] FamCA 547

APPLICANT: Ms Goldman

RESPONDENT: Mr Goldman

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Tiyce & Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: (P)SYC 3001 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 27 February 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 27 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Wearne, Solicitor

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Reid Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Anderson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Humphreys Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Guterres

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Tiyce & Lawyers

Orders

1. The oral application for adjournment made on behalf of the Respondent mother is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Goldman & Goldman (No 3) 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: (P) SYC 3001 of 2015

Ms Goldman

Applicant

And

Mr Goldman

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

Ex Tempore

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application made on behalf of the respondent mother for adjournment of these proceedings. An application was made on very short notice, on 23 February 2017.  On the same day the father had an application before the Court in respect of how witnesses should give evidence.  The adjournment application was also heard on that day, opposed and refused. 

2. The application is raised again this morning, and I have allowed further submissions on behalf of the applicant mother and responses by the other parties, in the circumstances of the first application having been made urgently, and by telephone.

The decision in Vasser & Taylor-Black

1. In support of her application the mother, first of all, relies on the authority of a decision by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in Vasser & Taylor-Black [2007] FamCA 547. That was an appeal from a decision of a Federal Circuit Court judge in relation to interim proceedings.

2. The child in question was subject to Family Court orders which had been made three years previously and in circumstances where an allegation was said to have been made by the child, to…