Harshani and Darnith

[2019] FamCA 89

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARSHANI & DARNITH [2019] FamCA 89

INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL – where final orders have been made that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that there were orders of the court that neither parent take a now ten year old child out of Australia, the father’s application for permission to travel to Country B and Country N was concerning because of the paucity of evidence – Father alleged that the mother’s allegations against him were vexatious – mother made allegations that would give rise to concerns of the court as to the father’s trustworthiness and the father had failed to answer any of those allegations in an affidavit that he filed subsequent to receiving the mother’s affidavit – application must fail.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Harshani

RESPONDENT: Ms Darnith

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1556 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 26 February 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 21 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:	In Person
THE RESPONDENT:	In Person

Orders

1. That the application in a case filed 5 December 2018 and the response thereto filed 4 February 2019 are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Harshani & Darnith has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1556 of 2010

Mr Harshani

Applicant

And

Ms Darnith

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Harshani (“the applicant”) and Ms Darnith (“the respondent”) appeared representing their own interests in the Judicial Duty List on 21 February 2019 with the applicant seeking parenting orders.  For the reasons that follow, his application must be dismissed.

2. The parties have had extensive litigation in this court going back to 2010.  The court file is in a number of volumes with over 260 separate documents.  Both parties have had extensive use of the court’s resources over the years and it is alarming that a substantial portion of that litigation revolves around the parties’ child G (the child) who is ten years of age.  Almost eight years of this child’s life have seen his parent’s litigation including an argument about the validity of their marriage.

3. The relevant orders which are the genesis of the present application are as follows.

4. On 25 July 2016, Macmillan J made the following orders by consent of the parties:

   2.        The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, save that before making any decision about any major long term issue concerning the child, the mother will advise the father of…