King & Anor and Phanphumong

[2010] FamCA 1206

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KING AND ANOR & PHANPHUMONG [2010] FamCA 1206

FAMILY LAW – CONSENT ORDERS – Children

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

1st APPLICANT: Ms King

2nd APPLICANT: Mr James

RESPONDENT: Ms Phanphumong

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10159 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 14 December 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 14 December 2010

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST & 2^ND

APPLICANTS:

Mr Walker, Gadens Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Myers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Forte Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That pursuant to s 65G(2), the requirement for the parties to attend upon a family consultant for the purposes of any report is waived.

2. That there be orders BY CONSENT of the parties in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the minutes annexed hereto and marked with the letter “A”.

3. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

4. That the reasons this day be transcribed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10159 of 2010

MS KING AND MR JAMES

Applicant

And

MS PHANPHUMONG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me this morning an application by Ms King and Mr James for parenting orders in relation to a child T, who has just turned 10 years of age.  The respondent to the application is the maternal grandmother of the child.  T is a child who was born in Phuket and whose mother was tragically lost in the tsunami.  The subsequent events were that she was cared for by her grandmother.  The applicants were doing volunteer work in the area and formed a relationship with the child, and in 2005, the child moved to Singapore.  In or around that year an arrangement was made naming the applicants as the guardians of the child by a Singaporean court. 

2. I have read that document, and it is quite clear that the Singaporean court was satisfied about the appropriateness of that order.  The last five years have seen this child grow and become very much a part of the applicants’ lives.  All of the material I have read indicates that there is a stable home environment and a good relationship between not only the applicants and the grandmother, but also between the child and the grandmother.  I have every confidence that the relationships will continue into the future. 

3. Section 65G provides that a court should not make a parenting order in favour of a non-parent unless the parties to the proceedings have attended a conference with a family consultant to discuss the matter of the proposed order or the court is satisfied that circumstances make it appropriate for that to be waived.

4. I am satisfied in this case that having regard to the fact that the Singaporean court has already examined the situation and been satisfied about the nature of the relationship and five years of hard toil has gone into the care of this child without any complaint being made that it is appropriate that I do not put those people through that assessment.  Accordingly, I waive the requirement under section 65G(2). 

5. The parties have otherwise prepared a set of orders that provide for the applicants to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.  An order for equal shared parental responsibility means they equally share all of the responsibilities, duties, and obligations that the law provides to parents in relation to children.  Again having regard to all of the matters that I have read and particularly those relating to the Singaporean proceedings, I am satisfied that that is an appropriate order, as is the order relating to the child living with the applicants. 

6. The parties have agreed that there will be time spent between the respondent and the child and also communication, and I have no reason to doubt that that is in the child’s best interests.  In the circumstances, I will make orders by consent of the parties in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the minute.  I will make orders in terms of paragraph 4, which is the section 65DA(2) and section 62B, and I will make the order that I earlier mentioned under section 65G(2) waiving the requirement to attend upon a family consultant. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 14 December 2010.

Associate: 

Date:  31 December 2010