Grange and Langmeil

[2010] FamCA 1081

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRANGE & LANGMEIL [2010] FamCA 1081

FAMILY LAW – INTERVENTION – orders that the Minister for the Department for Families and Communities intervene in the proceedings pursuant to s 91B
FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – children’s issues – where the matter has an extensive history – various procedural orders made to progress the matter

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC

APPLICANT: Mr Grange

RESPONDENT: Ms Langmeil

FILE NUMBER: ADC 365 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 18 November 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Dawe J

HEARING DATE: 18 November 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Dixon

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: A K Reeves & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

1. Leave is given to the mother to issue a subpoena to the South Australian Police for all documents concerning the mother, father and any of the children for documents relating to the period from 1 January 2008 to the present time PROVIDED THAT the subpoena for documents is issued by 4.00 pm on Friday 19 November 2010 and served promptly and made returnable before a Registrar in the usual course of events.

2. Pursuant to Section 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 THAT the Court requests the intervention of the Minister for the Department for Families and Communities – Families SA in the proceedings and the Court requests that the Minister send a representative to the next Court event on 10 December 2010 at 11.30 am to explain if the Minister is going to intervene and if not, why not.

3. Further consideration of the matter is adjourned to 10 December 2010 at 11.30 am before the Honourable Justice Dawe.

4. The mother is given leave to file an affidavit setting out her evidence in relation to the response to the father’s application PROVIDED THAT the affidavit and any response is filed and served by 4.00 pm on 30 November 2010.

5. If the father wishes to file any responding affidavit material it is to be filed and served by 4.00 pm on 7 December 2010.

6. During the period of the adjournment the time spent with the children by the mother is suspended.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Grange & Langmeil is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 365 of 2008

MR GRANGE

Applicant

And

MS LANGMEIL

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The material which has been provided to the Court by Families SA suggests that Families SA, CPS and the police are not proceeding to take any further action, notwithstanding the serious allegations the mother makes in relation to the care of the children at the home of the father.

2. The mother is asserting that she has been told differently by the police.  I have therefore given leave, notwithstanding the background in this matter, for the mother to issue the subpoena to the police department.

3. In the meantime, it is necessary for the Court to consider the welfare of the children during the period of the adjournment, and for that purpose I have taken into account the judgments of his Honour Justice Bell, who made a decision in this matter after hearing all of the evidence.  That decision was appealed by the mother to the Full Court and the appeal was rejected.  The mother was not able to obtain special leave to appeal to the High Court. 

4. The matter has also been before his Honour Justice Burr and myself on other occasions when the best interests of the children have been considered. On those occasions it has been indicated that the primary concerns are relevant, being the primary considerations under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), namely, the need to protect the children from abuse, and the need to ensure that the children continue to have a meaningful relationship with both of the parents.

5. In this case, the difficulty is that the mother is alleging abuse by the father, and the father is alleging that the mother’s psychiatric health is having an effect of psychologically and emotionally abusing the children. 

6. Considering the difficulty the Court has at the moment with the standard of the evidence and the lack of evidence which supports the mother’s position, and taking into account the decisions that have previously been made based on evidence then before the Court, I do not propose to do other than continue the orders made by his Honour Justice Burr on the last occasion, namely 9 November 2010.

7. It is not necessary to do other than that, because if there is no time spent, then there is no question of who needs to be the supervisor.  I will bring the matter back before me for further consideration on 10 December.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dawe delivered on 18 November 2010.

Associate: 

Date:  30 November 2010