Jarvinen and Jarvinen

[2007] FamCA 1692

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JARVINEN & JARVINEN [2007] FamCA 1692

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application relating to passport – Mother’s application for issue of passport to child – Orders finalised between parties in August 2004 – Child’s previous passport expired – Mother and child proposing to visit the maternal grandmother in Poland – Satisfied that it is the intention of the mother and child to return to Australia – Application granted

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Jarvinen

RESPONDENT: Mr Jarvinen

FILE NUMBER: ADC 4476 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 24 August 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Burr J

HEARING DATE: 24 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Dickson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Kelly & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

Orders

1. I make Orders in terms of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application filed by the wife on 22 August 2007.

2. I make the other standard Orders which will assist in the processing of the passport on a more urgent basis. 

3. I further order that the wife inform the husband by email of the Orders made by the Court this day and upon having done so, I deem that as adequate service of the application, the affidavit and today’s orders. 

4. I dismiss the application and remove it from the pending list.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Jarvinen & Jarvinen is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 4476 of 2007

MS JARVINEN  

Applicant

And

MR JARVINEN  

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me the wife’s Application for Final Orders filed on 22 August 2007 in which she seeks the issue of a passport for her daughter … (“[the child]”) born in April 1996.

2. There is a relatively long history of proceedings between the parties before the Court, proceedings first having been instituted in early 2003 and finalized by Orders made in August 2004.  There was some subsequent activity but for all intents and purposes, the issues between the parties were finally resolved in August 2004.  Those Orders were by way of property settlement made by Judicial Registrar Forbes.

3. A perusal of the file indicates that the husband, at various times, has not taken as full a part in these proceedings as one might have expected he would have.  He did not attend at the proceedings before the Judicial Registrar.  Various Orders in the past have also been made for substituted service.

4. I am satisfied that the wife has done what she can to bring these proceedings to the attention of the husband and I have perused email communications between the parties. 

5. The reasons proffered by the wife in support of her application appear entirely appropriate and completely legitimate.  It is an application for the issue of a new passport.  The child has for many years had a passport, her most recent passport expiring in June 2006.  It is clearly important for the wife and the child to travel to Poland to see the child’s grandmother, given the grandmother’s age and present state of health.

6. The wife and the child still reside in the former matrimonial home which was the subject of the property settlement proceedings before the Judicial Registrar.  Thus, there is clearly no issue of flight risk.  I am satisfied that it is the intention of the wife and the child to return to Australia once they have attended to their various family obligations in Poland.  It seems also that the child will have the exciting opportunity of some additional travel through her schooling.

7. For all of the above reasons, I am satisfied that the wife has done all she can to bring this application to the attention of the husband and that the conditions the husband sought to impose on the issue of the passport for the child were improper.  What is insightful, also, is that within the email exchanges the husband did not indicate that he refused permission, just that his permission was conditional.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Burr

Associate 

Date:  24 August 2007