Jewell and Tinsley

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEWELL & TINSLEY [2016] FCCA 3074
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – overseas travel.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.65Y

Cases cited:

In the Marriage of Kuebler (1978) FLC 90-434

Line & Line (1997) FLC 92-729

Yilmaz & Yilmaz [2010] FMCAfam 791

Applicant: MS JEWELL
Respondent: MR TINSLEY
File Number: DGC 1204 of 2015
Judgment of: Judge Harland
Hearing date: 25 November 2016
Date of Last Submission: 25 November 2016
Delivered at: Dandenong
Delivered on: 30 November 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Nicholson
Solicitors for the Applicant: Davison Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Arnold
Solicitors for the Respondent: AAB Lawyers
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Taghdir
Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Taft Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. The Application in a case filed on 18 November 2016 is dismissed.

  2. The response to an application in a case filed on 23 November 2016 is dismissed.

  3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall provide a copy of Dr E’s report to Ms L forthwith if he has not already done so.

  4. The proceeding is adjourned for final hearing on a date to be allocated by Judge Baumann in the call over listed on 20 February 2017 at 11.00am in Dandenong.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 1204 of 2015

MR TINSLEY

Applicant

And

MS JEWELL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The mother filed an application in a case on 18 November 2016 seeking permission to travel with the three children of the relationship to (country omitted). The children are X born (omitted) 2002, aged 14, Y born (omitted) 2007, aged 9 and Z born (omitted) 2010, aged 6.

  2. The mother is from (country omitted). She has many family members living there including her current husband and her father. She has not seen her husband for 14 months. They have applied for a spouse visa for him to come to Australia. She says she has been advised that it could take another 6 months before his visa is determined.  She says they applied for a temporary visa for her husband and his children to travel to Australia but was advised that a temporary visa would not be granted whilst the spouse visa is being determined.

  3. The mother says that she is suffering because she misses her husband and her father. She tries to protect the children from her sadness which they are being impacted by it.  She says that her father lives in both (country omitted) and Sydney. He returned to (country omitted) a month ago as his father died. She says she has not seen her father for several months.

  4. She wants to take the children to (country omitted) for 2 months over the summer holidays. Her niece is getting married on (omitted) 2017. She wants her children to experience a traditional (country omitted) wedding.

  5. Her…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jewell and Tinsley and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] FCCA 3074
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Jewell and Tinsley*, heard by Judge Harland, the court considered applications filed by the parties on 18 and 23 November 2016. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties, identified as Ms L and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, is not detailed in the provided text, beyond the involvement of a report by Dr E.

The primary legal issues before the court concerned the disposition of the applications filed by the parties and the provision of a report by Dr E. The court was also required to determine the future conduct of the proceeding, including its adjournment for a final hearing.

Judge Harland dismissed both the application filed on 18 November 2016 and the response filed on 23 November 2016. The court further ordered that the Independent Children’s Lawyer must provide a copy of Dr E’s report to Ms L immediately, if this had not already occurred. The proceeding was then adjourned for a final hearing, with a date to be allocated by Judge Baumann at a call over scheduled for 20 February 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application in a case filed on 18 November 2016 is dismissed.

2.

The response to an application in a case filed on 23 November 2016 is dismissed.

3.

The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall provide a copy of Dr E’s report to Ms L forthwith if he has not already done so.

4.

The proceeding is adjourned for final hearing on a date to be allocated by Judge Baumann in the call over listed on 20 February 2017 at 11.00am in Dandenong.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.