Highsmith and Kelly

[2018] FamCA 267

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGHSMITH & KELLY [2018] FamCA 267

FAMILY LAW – ADJOURNMENT – parenting – where respondent mother seeks adjournment on the basis of her own inadequate material – where the unrepresented father is in prison but wants to proceed – where the case has been in the system for four years – application refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Highsmith

RESPONDENT: Ms Kelly

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5183 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 18 April 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 18 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lethlean

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Samantha Ward Pty

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Goldsworthy

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Geelong Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That the application for adjournment is refused.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Highsmith & Kelly (No. 2) 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 5183  of 2016

Mr Highsmith

Applicant

And

Ms Kelly

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an adjournment by the respondent on the basis that her material is, in her counsel’s view, and I think quite properly put, not sufficient for the court to be able to make a decision in a parenting case.  The dilemma is that the husband, who is in jail and has waited some four and a-half years to get this resolved, bearing in mind this case has been sitting in a court list since May 2016 before the Federal Circuit Court and on a number of occasions adjourned before it was eventually transferred here, has a right to have it finalized.  I have warned him, about the state of the evidence but he wants to “chance his arm”.   I think he is entitled to do so.  The application for the adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 18 April 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  1 May 2018