FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KEITH & BROWNE | [2015] FCCA 1496 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Interim relocation. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part VII |
| D & SV [2003] 30 Fam LR 91; FLC 93-137 MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4; (2010) 42 Fam LR 531 |
| Applicant: | MR KEITH |
| Respondent: | MS BROWNE |
| File Number: | NCC 2905 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Myers |
| Hearing date: | 13 March 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 13 March 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Delivered on: | 27 March 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Graham |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Flintoff Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Chakich |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Bannerman Solicitors |
| Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: | Ms Garrick |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: | Brennan Garrick Lawyers |
ORDERS
The Court makes the following orders:
The mother have sole parental responsibility of the child X born (omitted) 2014.
The mother must relocate the child’s residence to the (omitted) or (omitted) Council area within 56 days of today’s orders.
The mother is hereby restrained from changing the residence of the child from any address outside the (omitted) or (omitted) Council area without the written consent of the father.
The child X born (omitted) 2014 live with mother.
The child spend time with the father each Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday of each week as agreed but failing agreement from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm each day.
For the purposes of facilitation the handover of the child between the parties, the parties shall deliver, collect and return the child to one another in the carpark at McDonalds Family Restaurant, (omitted) at (omitted).
Each party shall ensure the other party is kept informed as soon as is practicable of any medical condition, serious illness suffered or medical emergency related to the child.
The parties be prevented by injunction from denigrating one another or any member of the other’s family in front of or within the hearing of the child.
The parties undertake (by provision of urine screen in accordance with the Australian/NZ standard 4308:2001) urinalysis for drug screening as requested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer not more than once every six (6) week period and such urinalysis drug screening to be within 24 hours of such request and provide copies of the results of the tests to the other party within 48 hours of receipt of same.
The father is to remain engaged with his current general practitioner, psychiatrist and psychologist and undertake any counselling and form of therapy prescribed by the said general practitioner, psychiatrist and…
Continue reading KEITH & BROWNE
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- KEITH & BROWNE [2015] FCCA 1496
- Case
- [2015] FCCA 1496
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the terms of parenting orders, including the primary residence of the child, the extent of time the child would spend with the father, and provisions for relocation, communication, and the parties' conduct in relation to the child. Additionally, the court needed to consider the preparation of a Family Report to inform its decision-making process, specifically addressing factors under sections 60CC, 61DA, and 65DAA of the *Family Law Act 1975*, and to make directions regarding the inspection of documents by the family consultant.
The court made orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility for the child and stipulating that the child live with the mother. The mother was permitted to relocate the child to specific council areas within 56 days, with restrictions on further relocation outside these areas without the father's consent. The child was to spend significant time with the father on multiple days each week, with specific handover arrangements detailed. The court also issued injunctions preventing denigration of the other party or their family members and mandated drug screening for both parties. Further orders required the father to remain engaged with his treating medical professionals and to undertake prescribed counselling and medication. The court also directed the preparation of a Family Report, outlining specific areas of assessment, and granted the family consultant leave to inspect subpoenaed documents. The matter was adjourned for a directions hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court makes the following orders:
1.
The mother have sole parental responsibility of the child X born (omitted) 2014.
2.
The mother must relocate the child’s residence to the (omitted) or (omitted) Council area within 56 days of today’s orders.
3.
The mother is hereby restrained from changing the residence of the child from any address outside the (omitted) or (omitted) Council area without the written consent of the father.
4.
The child X born (omitted) 2014 live with mother.
5.
The child spend time with the father each Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday of each week as agreed but failing agreement from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm each day.
6.
For the purposes of facilitation the handover of the child between the parties, the parties shall deliver, collect and return the child to one another in the carpark at McDonalds Family Restaurant, (omitted) at (omitted).
7.
Each party shall ensure the other party is kept informed as soon as is practicable of any medical condition, serious illness suffered or medical emergency related to the child.
8.
The parties be prevented by injunction from denigrating one another or any member of the other’s family in front of or within the hearing of the child.
9.
The parties undertake (by provision of urine screen in accordance with the Australian/NZ standard 4308:2001) urinalysis for drug screening as requested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer not more than once every six (6) week period and such urinalysis drug screening to be within 24 hours of such request and provide copies of the results of the tests to the other party within 48 hours of receipt of same.
10.
The father is to remain engaged with his current general practitioner, psychiatrist and psychologist and undertake any counselling and form of therapy prescribed by the said general practitioner, psychiatrist and psychologist and in the case of the medication as prescribed by the said general practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist.
11.
The applicant’s costs of the proceedings are reserved.
12.
Liberty to restore the matter on 21 days’ notice.
13.
Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the child of the relationship attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Manager, Child Dispute Services on a date and at times to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report and in particular:
(a) to consider the factors in sections 60CC, 61DA and 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975;
(b) to profile of the parties
(c) to assess the parties interactions;
(d) to assess the child’s developmental and emotional state;
(e) to assess the relationship of the child to the parties and other significant persons in the child’s household;
(f) to ascertain the wishes of the children unless inappropriate by reason of age or other special circumstance;
(g) to assess the proposed and actual home environments; and
(h) to assess the proposals of each party as to the child’s future.
14.
The Court requests the said report be released by 1 December 2015.
15.
Pursuant to Regulation 1.06 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 the court dispenses with the requirement of Division 15A.2 of the said Rules and the family consultant is granted leave to inspect all documents produced in response to subpoena whether such documents have or have not been released for inspection.
16.
If the family consultant is unable to inspect documents produced in response to subpoena at the Newcastle Registry of the Commonwealth Law Courts, the Registry Manager upon receiving a request from the family consultant, is to forward such documents to the Registry nominated by such consultant to permit such inspection.
17.
The matter is adjourned to 4 December 2015 at 9.30 am for directions hearing in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia sittings at Wauchope.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
18.
The parties may seek to agitate property 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.