Jukes and Doyle

[2005] FMCAfam 92

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JUKES & DOYLE [2005] FMCAfam 92

FAMILY LAW – Maintenance – placing of father’s name on watchlist order in order to preserve maintenance application.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.68B

Waugh & Waugh [2000] FamCA 1183

Applicant: MARIA JUKES

Respondent: JOSEPH BRADLEY DOYLE

File No: PAM 300 of 2005

Delivered on: 28 January 2005

Delivered at: Parramatta

Hearing date: 28 January 2005

Judgment of: Emmett FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Harper

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr Benjamin, Watts McCray Lawyers

ORDERS

And in the circumstances I order that:

1. Application in accordance with Minutes of Proposed Orders is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to Rule 6.14 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules service will be deemed to have been effected by service upon either parent of the Respondent Father at 1 Weemala Rd, Pennant Hills.

3. There is to be at least 2 clear days between service and any Court hearing.

4. Grant leave to the Applicant Mother to file and serve any Amended Application and Affidavit in support provided service complies with Orders 2 and 3.

5. A copy of these Orders is to be served upon the Respondent Father in accordance with Orders 2 and 3.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PARRAMATTA

PAM 300 of 2005

MARIA JUKES

Applicant

And

JOSEPH BRADLEY DOYLE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application

1. Application is made for Orders preventing the Respondent Father from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia and placing the Respondent Father on the watch list.

The evidence

1. I have had regard to the Affidavit of Maria Jukes, the Applicant Mother, sworn 21 January 2005 and on which she relies in support of her Application. The Affidavit recites a history of the brief relationship that she had with the Respondent Father that the Applicant Mother believes gave rise to the birth of the child Patrick Jukes, born

   
   

   5 December 2004 (“the Child”), in England.

2. At the time the Child was born the Applicant Mother was married to another person although the Applicant Mother deposes in her Affidavit that at the time of conception the only person with whom she had sexual relations was the Respondent Father.

3. The Applicant Mother relies on the course of conduct embarked upon by the Respondent Father of divesting himself of 5 properties in the United Kingdom in respect of which he was the registered proprietor during the course of the pregnancy. 

4. The Applicant Mother further relies on evidence of the attitude exhibited by the Respondent Father to his parental responsibilities contained in conversations that the Applicant Mother said she had with the Respondent Father over time.  For example, paragraph 28:

   You're going to have to bring up that child alone.  If you have it it's your pet.  I don't want anything to do with it.  It's your choice.  This is the way it is.  It will probably be a retard anyway.

5. The Applicant Mother submits that the divesting of his assets by the Respondent Father and his subsequent travelling to Australia is evidence of the…