Hanson and Hooper
[2009] FMCAfam 973
•17 August 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HANSON & HOOPER | [2009] FMCAfam 973 |
| FAMILY LAW – Interim spend time dispute. |
| Applicant: | MR HANSON |
| Respondent: | MS HOOPER |
| File Number: | DGC 3707 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Burchardt FM |
| Hearing date: | 17 August 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 August 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Dandenong |
| Delivered on: | 17 August 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr T Moisidis |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Peninsula Law |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr M Kats |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Women’s Legal Service Victoria |
ORDERS
The matter be adjourned to this Court for final hearing on 2 March 2010 at 10.00 am, with an estimated hearing time of two days.
Pursuant to s.62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the parties and the children of the relationship [X] born in 1994, [Y] born in 1997 and [Z] born in 1999 (“the children”) attend upon a Family Consultant as previously nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of an up-to-date family report, such report to be released 21 days prior to the final hearing date.
The Family Report to deal with the following matters:
(a)any views expressed by the said children and any factors (such as the said children’s maturity or level of understanding) that would affect the weight that the court should place on those wishes;
(b)the matters set out in ss.60CC, 61DA and 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975; and
(c)any other matters that the Family Consultant considers important to the welfare or best interests of the said children.
There be general liberty to apply to the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 13.04 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, orders are made in accordance with the attached minutes of proposed orders placed on the Court file.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
The solicitors for the Applicant file three clean typed copies of these orders within seven days.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
Pursuant to section 65DA(2) 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 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 & Hooper is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DANDENONG |
DGC 3707 of 2008
| MR HANSON |
Applicant
And
| MS HOOPER |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
There are two things to be said about this. The children are now starting to reach an age, adolescence, 15, even 12, where it is normal for some measure of tension to exist about how much time they spend doing what their parents want them to do and about what they want to do, but this is a case that does not take place within a normal prism.
It takes place in circumstances where the family report writer has recommended steps in the children’s best interests for the maintenance and furthering of their relationship with their father.
On what I have been told about their activities, it seems to me that the time selected, namely 3.00 – 5.00 pm on Saturdays, if I have got that right, is time that is likely to do only minor damage to the children’s activities as they have been outlined to me and it would seem to me desirable that such time be sustained.
I would, therefore, not be prepared to make the order the mother seeks because it has the capacity to confuse the operation of orders that the Court would be making in the children’s best interests.
However, and this is something perhaps that is clearer to someone in my position than it would be to someone in the father’s position because I am not involved in the heat and battle of the case, all parents of adolescent children need to bear in mind that impacting significantly upon the extramural activities of their children has the capacity to be counter-productive.
What I would do is urge that in the event that the children have something coming up that is important to them and which is notified in a reasonable time in advance, that there be flexibility on the father’s part and I note that it is put that the children will only go when all of them will go.
That, therefore, means that if one or other is not available almost every week, the net effect would be to frustrate the orders that are otherwise thought to be in the children’s best interests and it is really with that in mind that I would not be prepared to make the order Mr Kats seeks. These remarks will be transcribed and forwarded to the parties, and I would suggest that it is very much in the father’s interests that he take them on board.
In other words, I would make the orders in the form sought to this extent, at least, by Mr Moisidis. I haven’t seen the final orders that you are proposing otherwise, but insofar as you have asked me to give you a short-form indication, I would say I would not make the order that these orders be subject to best endeavours to avoid interrupting the children’s routines because, ultimately, the children’s routines have to come second but by the same token, it is just a matter of ordinary common sense that if it ends up with the children spending time with their father in circumstances that they do not get to regularly do something they are desperate to do then that is something the father is likely to find blows up in his face.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Burchardt FM
Associate: Ms B Evans
Date: 17 August 2009
0
0
0