FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Gustafsson & Jeanes [2024] FedCFamC1F 217
File number(s): NCC 459 of 2023 Judgment of: SMITH J Date of judgment: 6 March 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Orders - Paternal grandfather and paternal cousin contacting child - attempting to influence child in favour of the father – causing child emotional distress – where child has recorded these conversations – where child has raised the issue with the Independent Childrens Lawyer.
FAMILY LAW – Orders – 68B and 114 Injunction against paternal grandfather, paternal cousin and father from contacting child directly or indirectly.
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Pt 3.11, s 138
Family Law Act1975 (Cth) Pts VII, XIV, ss 68B, 69ZL, 114
Cases cited: Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1586 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 31 Date of hearing: 6 March 2024 Place: Newcastle by Microsoft Teams Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Howells Solicitor for the Applicant: Oliver Howells & Co Legal & Conveyancing Counsel for the First Respondent: Litigant in person Counsel for the Second Respondent: Litigant in person Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Blundell Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Jennifer Blundell & Associates ORDERS
NCC 459 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS GUSTAFSSON
Applicant
AND: MR JEANES
First Respondent
MS BLUTH
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 114 and s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MR B date of birth unknown (the paternal grandfather of Y) be restrained from:
a.Contacting or attempting to contact the child, Y born 2010 (“Y”) by any means, including through a third party;
b.approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might reside from time to time;
c.approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might attend school.
2.Pursuant to s 114 and s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MR C date of birth unknown (the cousin of Y) be restrained from:
a.Contacting or attempting to contact Y by any means, including through a third party;
b.approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might reside from time to time;
c.approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might attend school.
3.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MR JEANES born 1978 (“the father”) be restrained from approaching or contacting Y directly or indirectly, or from asking or facilitating any other person to contact Y.
4.Pursuant to s 68C each of the injunctions in Orders 1, 2 and 3 above pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), is for the personal protection of the child, Y born 2010.
5.Liberty is severally granted to Mr B and Mr C to file an Application in a Proceeding to set aside the injunctions placed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gustafsson & Jeanes and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC1F 217
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the paternal grandfather and cousin should be restrained from contacting the child directly or indirectly. The court also had to consider whether the father should be restrained from approaching or contacting the child directly or indirectly, or facilitating contact through others. The court needed to balance the child’s right to protection against the paternal grandfather and cousin's right to contact and the father’s right to contact under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
The court found that the paternal grandfather and cousin's attempts to influence the child constituted emotional harm. The recordings and the child’s testimony supported these findings. The court was satisfied that restraining the paternal grandfather and cousin from contacting the child directly or indirectly was necessary for the child’s protection. The court also found that the father's attempts to indirectly facilitate contact through the paternal grandfather and cousin were detrimental to the child's well-being and warranted restraint. Consequently, the court issued injunctions under sections 114 and 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to protect the child from the paternal grandfather, cousin, and father. The paternal grandfather and cousin were also subject to ex parte injunctions. The court allowed the paternal grandfather and cousin to apply to set aside the injunctions. The father was required to provide the addresses of the paternal grandfather and cousin to the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Orders
Orders of the court
NCC 459 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MS GUSTAFSSON
Applicant
AND:
MR JEANES
First Respondent
MS BLUTH
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 114 and s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MR B date of birth unknown (the paternal grandfather of Y) be restrained from:
a. Contacting or attempting to contact the child, Y born 2010 (“Y”) by any means, including through a third party;
b. approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might reside from time to time;
c. approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might attend school.
2. Pursuant to s 114 and s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MR C date of birth unknown (the cousin of Y) be restrained from:
a. Contacting or attempting to contact Y by any means, including through a third party;
b. approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might reside from time to time;
c. approaching or coming within 100 metres of any place where Y might attend school.
3. Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MR JEANES born 1978 (“the father”) be restrained from approaching or contacting Y directly or indirectly, or from asking or facilitating any other person to contact Y.
4. Pursuant to s 68C each of the injunctions in Orders 1, 2 and 3 above pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), is for the personal protection of the child, Y born 2010.
5. Liberty is severally granted to Mr B and Mr C to file an Application in a Proceeding to set aside the injunctions placed on them.
6. Service by post will be good service for the purpose of the Injunctions in orders 1 and 2 above.
7. Y may be provided with a copy of these orders by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and informed of their effect.
THE COURT ORDERS, BY CONSENT, THAT:
8. The father is to provide the postal addresses of both Mr B and Mr C to the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A. Ex parte Injunctions in orders 1 and 2 have effect from notice being received by the named subjects of the injunction.
B. The Independent Children’s Lawyer will post a copy of these Orders to Mr B and Mr C.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.