Imani and Etola

[2017] FamCA 1123

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IMANI & ETOLA [2017] FamCA 1123

FAMILY LAW – Permission for parties to produce documents from pending parenting proceedings to County Court of Victoria in appeal proceedings against domestic violence order under state legislation

APPLICANT: Ms Imani

RESPONDENT: Mr Etola

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms M Lonergan

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4188 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 11 December 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 11 December 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Ratray

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:
COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Excused from attendance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Victoria Legal Aid – excused from attendance

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Leave be granted to the mother to make an oral application this day for an order entitling the parties to rely upon documents filed and evidence given in the parenting proceedings, for which evidence and submissions were concluded before me on 28 August 2017 and my decision remains reserved, before the County Court of Victoria on the father’s appeal against an intervention order against him made in the Magistrates’ Court at Suburb M on 8 September 2017 or any other appeal or incidental proceeding under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) concerning the protection of the mother and the children B born … 2006 and C born … 2011.

2. The mother be at liberty to provide to the presiding Magistrate who hears any application under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) and any judge of the County Court of Victoria who hears an appeal from any intervention order operating between the parties for the protection of the mother and /or for the protection of the children a copy of any documents filed and evidence given in these proceedings including, but not limited to, the following:-

   a)The report of Dr D, psychiatrist, dated 7 August 2017;

   b)The transcript of evidence given by Dr G, psychiatrist on 24 August 2017;

   c)The transcripts of the proceedings on 24 and 25 August 2017.

3. The father is similarly at liberty to provide to the presiding judicial officers a copy of any documents filed in this proceedings and transcripts of evidence given.

4. My reasons for decision be transcribed.

IT IS DIRECTED:

1. That the email communication from the independent children’s lawyer dated 8 December 2017 consenting to the request of the mother be marked Exhibit “A” and remain on the Court file.

IT IS NOTED:

A.     That the family consultant Ms H was not required for cross examination in the proceedings and was not cross examined.

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 Imani & Etola 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 4188 of 2015

Ms Imani

Applicant

And

Mr Etola

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes before me as an urgent mention, just prior to the commencement of an appeal in the County Court of Victoria, which appeal has been filed by the father in relation to a final intervention order made in September 2017 in the Magistrates Court at Suburb M, in which the mother and children are designated aggrieved family members. The intervention order is expressed to run for a 10 year period. 

2. At the conclusion of parenting proceedings before me on 28 August 2017, I made an order permitting the parties to rely on any documents filed or any evidence given in the proceedings in this court in the contested proceedings in the Magistrates Court, Suburb M.  The proceedings today are an appeal from an order made in those Magistrates Court proceedings and I am satisfied that it’s appropriate that the parties be in a position to produce documents in the County Court. 

3. I have made clear to both parties this morning that nothing I have ordered entitles them to rely on any documentation or transcript in the County Court.  It merely entitles them to produce documents and there seek rulings as to evidence and reliance upon those documents. 

4. I am satisfied that given the nature of the parenting proceedings, the fact that the father currently has no time and no entitlement to communicate with the children, it is appropriate that the courts in another jurisdiction understand some of the evidence that was before this court.  Where an expert report was cross-examined upon, the cross-examination is transcribed.

5. I am satisfied that it’s in the best interest of the children for proceedings between both courts to be as transparent as possible. 

6. Finally, I note that regrettably my decision remains reserved at the moment, and there is no final orders yet made, so none will obviously be produced today. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 11 December 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  8 January 2018