King and Macauley

[2008] FamCA 234

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KING & MACAULEY [2008] FamCA 234

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Application by husband for leave to institute proceedings for a parenting order – All three children over the age of 18 years – Applicant earlier declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 118(1) of the Family Law Act (1975) (as amended) – No jurisdiction for such relief – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr King

RESPONDENT: Ms Macauley

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1909 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 31 March 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Guest J

HEARING DATE: 31 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That the Initiating Application of the Applicant (father) filed on 3 March 2008 be dismissed.

IT IS DIRECTED

1. That the ex tempore judgment delivered this day be transcribed and placed on the court file.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1909  of 2008

Mr King

Applicant

And

Ms Macauley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me an Initiating Application brought by the husband concerning a child welfare issue in which court orders were made many years ago.  The applicant filed his Application on 3 March 2008 and appears in person.  He referred to the fact that the parties married in June 1984 and separated in 1993.  There are three children, C, who was born in December 1981 and is now 27 years of age, L, who was born in March 1983, and the youngest child, N, who was born in February 1986.

2. By his application, the husband sought an order:

   “Return of my children and that they are made aware of the treachery and lies that have denied them any contact with their father for 14 years.”

3. His Application is supported by an affidavit which is deposed to by the husband and which repeats matters of history and annexed letters of complaint requiring an urgent inquiry, including one that he had written to The Honourable Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General.  He annexed other correspondence including a letter from Coadys Barristers and Solicitors, who were his former lawyers and which is dated November 1995.  It is now stale in time by some 12 and a half years.  It is a letter in support of an appeal by him against earlier orders made by the court.

4. The husband has complained in the Family Court time and again, being aggrieved by the orders that were made long ago.  He refers to the court procedures as “treachery”, and the wife as “a liar”.  Time has gone by.  The children are now young adults, yet he still returns to court. 

5. An order was made by the court on 11 September 2000 declaring the husband a vexatious litigant.  By that order he was restrained, as from 12 September 2001 from instituting any application in relation to residence orders, contact orders and/or specific issues orders relating to any of the three children that I have referred to unless leave is obtained to institute proceedings from a judge of this court. 

6. In compliance with that order, the husband has brought this futile application. It appears to me that he is seeking a parenting order pursuant to section 65B(1) and (2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended). It is clear that he may apply for a parenting order (see section 65C). However, section 65H(1) of the Act provides that a parenting order must not be made in relation to a child who is over the age of 18 years, as these children are. Accordingly, his application is without foundation and suffers a jurisdictional bar.

7. In the course of a reasonably robust but polite conversation with the husband, he understood that fact as a matter of law but still progressed with his complaint about “treachery and lies”, both of which he has been complaining now for some 12 or more years.  It is a tragic situation in which he has sought to spend time with his children, all of whom are over the age of 18 years, as I said, the eldest being 27.  He blames the legal system and has over the years lodged numerous complaints in addition to the utilisation of appropriate legal channels.  Such complaints have been addressed, as I recall to the Human Rights Commission and indeed to Her Majesty the Queen in England.

8. For the reasons stated, I will dismiss the application.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Guest.

Associate: 

Date:  11 April 2008.