Laver & Bright

[2007] FamCA 1112

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LAVER & BRIGHT [2007] FamCA 1112

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Adjournment through no fault of any party – parties seek re-listing in October 2007

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Laver

RESPONDENT: Ms Bright

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Sarah Lia

FILE NUMBER: MLF 1117 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 16 July 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 16 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms J.P. Spehr

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Victoria Legal Aid

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr M.L. Pavone

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Rhonda G Wilkinson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

COUNSEL:

Mr R.D. Curtain

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

SOLICITOR:

Sarah Lia

Orders

(1)That the further hearing of all extant proceedings be adjourned to 8 October 2007 at 10am (estimated to take 5 days).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY CONSENT:

(2)That pending the adjourned hearing date and until further order for the purposes of the time the father spends with the child K born … July 2002 he be permitted to attend Ballarat Contact Centre in the company of his mother LS (Paternal Grandmother) and she be present during the supervised time periods.

(3)That the father be permitted to introduce K to her brother D born … April 2007. 

(4)That the fathers partner M be permitted to attend the fathers time spent with K at the discretion of the Ballarat Contact Centre.

(5)That the mother ensure that the child is delivered to the Ballarat Contact Centre for all periods of supervised time the father spends with K.

(6)That pursuant to section 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 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 annexure hereto relating to parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help, the particulars of which are included in this Order.

(7)That my brief reasons for judgment given this day be transcribed and a copy be made available to each of the parties. 

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 1117 of 2006

MR LAVER  

Applicant

And

MS BRIGHT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(ex tempore)

1.The matter comes before me as the final hearing of competing applications concerning K born in July 2002.  The parties to the proceedings are her parents, and an independent children's lawyer, Ms Lia, represented K's interests.  The matter is listed as the first of my reserve matters but this morning counsel for the mother has made an adjournment based on the inability of his client to attend court.  

2.There is no dispute between the parties that the mother is unwell, that she is currently under medical care and that she will be incapacitated as far as attending court is concerned for between three to five weeks. 

3.No issue is taken to the admissibility of a letter from Dr T, dated today, which reads:

This is to confirm that [the mother] was admitted to the Maryborough Hospital on 13 July and discharged on 14 July.  She has an abdominal infection and will be seeing a specialist in two weeks after treatment.  She will be unfit to attend court for three weeks from today.

4.I am advised from the bar table, and it is accepted by counsel for the father and counsel for the independent children's lawyer, that the mother is suffering from appendicitis and will be incapacitated for at least three weeks. 

5.

Orders which have been negotiated between the parties provide for the matter to be adjourned.  Everyone accepts that the adjournment is unavoidable, and

I will make the orders that are sought.  Significantly they permit the father to introduce members of his family to K, including his newborn son D, who is three months old, his partner M, and the contact is to continue at Ballarat Contact Centre.  The independent children's lawyer assures me that this is some progress in the matter, which in unfortunate circumstances requires to be adjourned. 

6.There is a complicating factor.  K has been seeing her father at Ballarat Contact Centre since October 2005.  The centre has indicated that its services will be withdrawn.  Very recently a last extension has been secured from July until October 2007 but after that there will be no facility for K to spend time with the father at the centre. 

7.The parties in those circumstances seek that this matter be brought on for hearing prior to October 2007 if at all possible.  It appears to be a matter worthy of being accorded priority.

I certify that the preceding eight (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett

Associate

Date:20 September 2007