Granger and Collett

[2007] FamCA 835

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRANGER & COLLETT [2007] FamCA 835

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Consent orders – Injunction

APPLICANT: Mr Granger

RESPONDENT: Ms Collett

FILE NUMBER: DNC 175 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 23 May 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 23 May 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms S.J. Roenfeldt

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Withnalls Territory Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Dibden

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Granger & Collett.

ORDERS

1. That the children B born in May 1997 and R born in February 2000 live with the father and the mother on a week and week about basis with handover to occur each Friday after school.

2. That the time the mother spends with the child B pursuant to paragraph 1 hereof be subject to the child’s wishes and to be negotiated between the said child and the mother and the father.

3. That each parent be at liberty to telephone the children when they are in the care of the other parent each Wednesday between 6:30pm and 7:30pm and each Sunday between 6:30pm and 7:30pm.

4. That neither parent is to be under the influence of illegal drugs or to be over the legal limit for alcohol when the children are in their care.

5. That neither parent is to denigrate the other parent or members of the other parent’s household in the presence of the children.

6. On each of the parents’ birthdays and each of the children’s birthdays, the parent who does not have the care of the children on these special occasions do have the children in their care, if it is a school day, for 2 hours by agreement between the parents and in default of an agreement from 3:30pm until 5:30pm and if it is a non-school day for 4 hours by agreement between the parents and in default of an agreement from 9:00am until 1:00pm.

ORDER UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

1. That the mother be restrained from engaging in escort work while the children are in her care.

2. That pursuant to Section 62B and Section 65DA of the Family Law Act the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the attached Fact Sheet.

3. That the Form 2 Application filed by the mother on 20 April 2007 be dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER:  ADC 175 of 2007

MR GRANGER

Applicant

And

MS COLLETT

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. Today I have before me a Form 2 Application filed by the father on 20 April 2007.  The parties have been in negotiation about this matter.  They have had a conference through the local Legal Aid office and they have been able to use the resources of the Family Court and the resources of that court to see if they can reach agreement.

2. I am pleased to say the parties have been able to reach substantial agreement about the issues in dispute, and I will make the orders that are by consent in a moment.

3. There were two issues that were not agreed.  Those issues were not the subject of any orders sought by the father and the mother has not yet filed any responding documents. 

4. The first issue is the father raising concern about what he describes as pole dancing exercises being done by the child R.  To repeat there is no application about that and there is nothing in the father's affidavit.  From the bar table, the mother's counsel has advised me of her client's instructions and I must say on the basis of what has been said, it seems an innocuous issue or matter to me.  However, that may change depending upon any further affidavit that is filed.

5. In the circumstances I do not propose to make any order about that and if the father wishes to pursue it, he is at liberty to do so.  He can file a further application and a supporting affidavit, but until it is properly before the court and there is far more evidence before me than I have now, I am not prepared to make any order.

6. The second matter which is raised is the father seeking an injunction restraining the mother from engaging in escort work whilst the children are in her care.  Again, there is no application to that effect.  However, the father did include in one of his affidavits a brief paragraph which relates to this issue.  He says that the mother told him that she had been working as an escort.  She was registered with an ABN in relation to being an escort, she was involved in Internet content, and had details on a web site.

7. The mother, as I say, has not filed anything in response yet.  I understand though from her counsel's submissions to me that the mother does not necessarily deny that she engages in or has engaged in escort work.  What the mother says though is that she opposes the injunction because that does not impact upon the children.  That may be the case and indeed the mother will have the opportunity to file an answering affidavit if so advised, but at face value and at the level I am dealing with this, it is a serious issue raised by the father.

8. I am concerned, as always, with the safety and wellbeing of the children the subject of any proceedings and thus I propose to grant an injunction until further order, because of course we do not know when the matter is going to be finally dealt with.  Obviously the mother will have the opportunity to file an application and to file an affidavit opposing that.  That is all I propose to say about that issue.

9. In terms of where this case now goes, it has been a matter which is subject to what is described as the child responsive model.  The parties went to an intake and assessment interview on 18 April 2007, but the matter has not progressed from there because of these proceedings.  As far as I am concerned, the child responsive model can be re‑introduced in this matter and I will make a notation to my order directed to Mr Ralph about that.

10. The matter is listed next before Registrar Dore on 28 May 2007.  That listing is to be maintained.  Of course on that day Registrar Dore will look at the Form 1 Application and also consider what affidavits might be on file then, and what should be done about this issue of the injunction relating to the mother's escort work.

11. In terms of the orders to be made by consent, they were dictated to me by the father's counsel and my associate has taken those orders down.

12. I note that in this matter there has been an intake and assessment interview on 18 April 2007as part of the child responsive model.  I indicate to Mr Ralph that that process should be continued in this case, leading ultimately to a report, and thus I do not propose to make any specific order about that on the basis that my indication is sufficient for Mr Ralph to reintroduce the parties to that model and move to the next stage of the same.

I certify that the preceding
12numbered paragraphs are
a true copy of the reasons herein of the
Honourable Justice Strickland.
The 23^rd day of May 2007.

……………………………………….
Associate