Hughes and Wiseman

[2012] FamCA 922

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUGHES & WISEMAN [2012] FamCA 922

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application seeking the Court to conduct a review in relation to minor change to the children’s time spent with the father – Where there is no facility for the Court to conduct reviews in relation to arrangements for children – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Hughes

RESPONDENT: Mr Wiseman

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6525 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 4 October 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rees J

HEARING DATE: 4 October 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Dura

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Macpherson
 & Kelley Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Bridger

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Uther Webster & Evans

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the mother’s application is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6525 of 2011

Ms Hughes

Applicant

And

Mr Wiseman

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The proceedings before the Court concern two children, B, born in December 2002, and C, born in November 2005.  Their parents have been separated physically since January 2012, and since January 2012, by agreement between them, the children have spent six nights each fortnight in the care of their father.

2. The parties also, by agreement, have engaged in counselling with Ms D, who is a clinical psychologist who is conducting family therapy with the children.  On 3 October 2012, at the request of the mother, Ms D wrote a letter addressed to the parties commenting on a change in the parenting arrangements which was proposed by the mother.

3. At its highest, Ms D’s preference is to review the arrangements which are currently in place by reducing by one night each fortnight the time the father spends with the children.  It is her preference that this arrangement should occur for eight weeks, that is, until the end of the school term, and again be reviewed.

4. It is abundantly clear that there is no facility in the Court to conduct reviews in relation to arrangements for children, particularly in relation to what are very minor changes to their regimes.  It is abundantly clear that there is no capacity in the Court to conduct a review of these children’s progress at the end of eight weeks, and any changes which would be put in place would be put in place for many, many months.

5. In those circumstances, and having regard to Ms D’s clear recommendation that any change should be for eight weeks only, it is a matter for the parents to agree if they can, but it is not a matter in relation to which I propose to make any orders.  The application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees delivered on 4 October 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  30 October 2012