Kavanagh and Power and Ors

[2015] FamCA 691

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KAVANAGH & POWER AND ORS [2015] FamCA 691

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interlocutory Application – Where an application is made by the mother for a recovery order for one of the subject children – Application dismissed

APPLICANT: Mr Kavanagh

RESPONDENT:

Ms Power

SECOND RESPONDENT:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr A & Ms B Power

Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER: NCC 3266 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 30 July 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 30 July 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Curtis

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: YPG Legal

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not Applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Not Applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Orders

1. The Application by the Applicant mother for recovery of C born .. 2000 is dismissed.

2. Leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide a copy to the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services of the Reasons for my declining the Application by the Application mother for recovery of the child together with past Orders and any reasons in respect of the child.

3. This matter is adjourned to 9.30 am on Thursday 13 August 2015.

4. Leave is granted to the Applicant mother to attend Court on the next occasion by telephone.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC 3266 of 2013

Mr Kavanagh

Applicant

And

Ms Power

First Respondent

And

Mr A & Ms B Power

Second Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

introduction

1. An application is made to have C born in 2000 recovered by the Police and returned to the care of the mother. 

2. All of the evidence that I have read and heard suggests that the child, aged almost 15 years of age, in the event she is found by Police and returned to the mother, will react to that by quickly leaving with the consequent risk that the current line of communication between herself and the paternal family, particularly the paternal grandmother and even with her own mother and also with the Independent Children’s Lawyer, will be broken.  That is a significant risk for the child who has been vulnerable and at risk for at least two years.

3. The child lives independently of both her parents; she acts independently of both her parents; she chooses her own course of action because she can; her parents are not united in a common plan; and the two sides of the family are not united in protecting the child.

4. I consider that there would be no benefit to the child or to the parents in their dispute about her, in issuing that order and I decline that order.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 30 July 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  30 July 2015