Judd & Romijn - [2024] FedCFamC1F 688

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Judd & Romijn [2024] FedCFamC1F 688

File number(s): DNC 579 of 2021

Judgment of: KARI J

Date of judgment: 8 October 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father is not present at the hearing – Where the father has not complied with orders – Where the father is not present in Australia and is unable to indicate when he may return – Where the matter is not in a position to proceed to trial because the father is not present in Australia – Where the court considers the father has not been prosecuting his case with due diligence – Where the father’s Application for Final Orders is struck out – Orders made in accordance with the mother’s Amended Response to Final Orders

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 60CC, 68B

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 69

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Pt 10.6, rr 10.26, 10.27,

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 28

Date of hearing: 8 October 2024

Place: Adelaide by Webex

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Gray of Grays Legal NT

The Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

DNC 579 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR JUDD

Applicant

AND:
MS ROMIJN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

KARI J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That the mother have sole parental responsibility for X born 2019, the child.
2.That the child shall live with the mother.
3.That the child shall not spend any time with the father.
4.That pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 that MR JUDD the father of X born 2019 shall be restrained and injuncted from:
(a)Contacting or communicating with Ms Romijn and X directly or indirectly except in accordance with court orders;
(b)Entering or remaining at any place that Ms Romijn is living, staying or working;
(c)Entering or remaining at any place that X is living, staying or located;
(d)Contacting or communicating with a work colleague of Ms Romijn;
(e)Contacting or communicating with a member of Ms Romijn’s family.

5.That the proceedings be dismissed as finalised.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Judd & Romijn has…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Judd & Romijn

Details

AGLC: Judd & Romijn [2024] FedCFamC1F 688
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 688
Decision Date: 8 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Judd v Romijn involved a dispute regarding parental responsibility and contact arrangements for a child born in 2019. Mr Judd, the father, applied for final orders, but his absence from the hearing and non-compliance with court orders complicated the proceedings. The court was tasked with determining whether the father's absence justified the striking out of his application and deciding on the final orders concerning the child's care and contact.

The legal issues before the court included whether the father's absence and lack of diligence in prosecuting his case warranted the dismissal of his application for final orders, and if so, what orders should be made concerning the child's welfare and contact with the parents. The court had to consider the statutory provisions under the Family Law Act 1975 and the practical implications of the father's non-presence and non-compliance. The mother argued that the father's absence and lack of effort to comply with the court's orders should result in the dismissal of his application, and that sole parental responsibility should be awarded to her.

The court found that the father had not been prosecuting his case with due diligence, given his absence from Australia and inability to indicate when he might return. It also concluded that the matter was not ready to proceed to trial due to the father's absence. Consequently, the court struck out the father's application for final orders. The court then made orders in accordance with the mother's amended response to final orders, awarding her sole parental responsibility for the child and prohibiting the child from spending any time with the father. Additionally, the father was restrained from contacting the child, the mother, or their associates, and the proceedings were dismissed as finalised.

Orders

Orders of the court

DNC 579 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR JUDD

Applicant

AND:

MS ROMIJN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

KARI J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That the mother have sole parental responsibility for X born 2019, the child.

2. That the child shall live with the mother.

3. That the child shall not spend any time with the father.

4. That pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 that MR JUDD the father of X born 2019 shall be restrained and injuncted from:

(a) Contacting or communicating with Ms Romijn and X directly or indirectly except in accordance with court orders;

(b) Entering or remaining at any place that Ms Romijn is living, staying or working;

(d) Contacting or communicating with a work colleague of Ms Romijn;

(e) Contacting or communicating with a member of Ms Romijn’s family.

5. That the proceedings be dismissed as finalised.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	DNC 579 of 2021
Judgment of:	KARI J
Date of judgment:	8 October 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father is not present at the hearing – Where the father has not complied with orders – Where the father is not present in Australia and is unable to indicate when he may return – Where the matter is not in a position to proceed to trial because the father is not present in Australia – Where the court considers the father has not been prosecuting his case with due diligence – Where the father’s Application for Final Orders is struck out – Orders made in accordance with the mother’s Amended Response to Final Orders
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 60CC, 68B Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 69 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Pt 10.6, rr 10.26, 10.27,
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	28
Date of hearing:	8 October 2024
Place:	Adelaide by Webex
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms Gray of Grays Legal NT
The Respondent:	No appearance

DNC 579 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR JUDD Applicant
AND:	MS ROMIJN Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	KARI J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 OCTOBER 2024