Hanson and Hanson

[2016] FCCA 3309

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HANSON & HANSON [2016] FCCA 3309

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Undefended parenting.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.11F

Applicant: MS HANSON

Respondent: MR HANSON

File Number: DGC 1341 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 22 November 2016

Date of Last Submission: 22 November 2016

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 22 November 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Harrison

Solicitors for the Applicant: Wakefield & Vogrig Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Taghdir

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Taft Lawyers

ORDERS

1. There be final parenting orders, by consent between the Applicant and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, in terms of the Minute of Consent Orders signed by the Applicant and the Independent Children’s Lawyer and dated 22 November 2016 (“the minute”) and:

   (a)The minute be placed on the Court file;

   (b)The solicitors for the applicant engross the minute and deliver a clean, certified, electronic copy of the minute (“the copy”) to the Chambers of Judge Harland by way of email to [email protected] within seven days; and

   (c)Upon delivery of the copy to the Court, the within orders be extracted and the copy be attached hereto.

NOTING

1. Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 1341 of 2014

MS HANSON

Applicant

And

MR HANSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This matter was started on 12 May 2014. The mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) have agreed to consent orders finalising the parenting matters today. The father has not appeared today. It is now 11.18am. The matter was listed at 9.45am. He was called outside and has not appeared. Exhibit A is an email from the father to the ICL which indicates dissatisfaction with the proceedings, and in line with that email, it is not surprising that he is not here today. The father has not filed any material since 2015.

3. Most recently, a family report was prepared and released on 14 November 2016. It is clear from that report that it has been difficult for X born (omitted) 2006 and Y born (omitted) 2006 (“the children”) to maintain a positive relationship with their father since the parties separated some three years ago. The father has had mental health issues, which have caused him a lot of difficulty and which the children have also been exposed to. The children were spending supervised time with the father but expressed reluctance to continue that. Given the children are age 10, it is probably not surprising.

4. The family report writer expresses some concerns about this matter and about the children and makes it clear that unless the father engaged in the proceedings and complied with interim orders, then it was likely that the matter would proceed with a final hearing with the relationship breaking down even further.  Her recommendations were for the father to continue to have supervised time at (omitted) Contact Centre until final orders were made and that the parties and children engaged in reportable counselling with Ms B. 

5. It is of some significance that there were orders made when the matter was last before me on 6 July 2016 which required the father to provide a report from his treating psychologist prior to the family report, and the ICL was to provide his treating psychologist with the s.11F report, 2015 family report and the two reports of Dr G, who has undertaken a psychiatric assessment of the father. The father did not comply with those orders. The father is not currently seeing the children.

6. Dr W, in his supplementary report, refers to his previous report and the importance of the father obtaining further counselling to consolidate the gains that he had made and also to help alleviate further relapses. He expresses some concern that in the light of the father having received his initial report in October 2015, the father has not accessed any of that counselling, which gives an indication as to his insight and motivation. He also expressed concerns about the father spending significant amounts of unsupervised time with the children. It is consistent with the family report concerns as well.

7. The mother urges that the Court finalise this matter today, given the length of time that it has been in court and the impact on the children, and the ICL joins in the mother’s application for final orders to be made today. The orders provide for the father having liberty to apply to set aside the orders if he does so within 28 days of today. In my view, he would also need to explain why he has not complied with the previous orders and what he is doing with respect to that issue. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how the matter could progress any further. There is no point in having the matter proceed past today and that would be an additional stress to the mother to the children.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Harland

Date:  19 December 2016