Lethbridge & Taylor

[2021] FamCA 646

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lethbridge & Taylor [2021] FamCA 646

File number(s):	BRC4768/2012
Judgment of:	HOWARD J
Date of judgment:	11 August 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim application adjourned to the final hearing – where the orders sought by the mother cannot be made without a full ventilation of all arguments; cross examination and the making of certain findings by the Court – where the Court’s resources were also considered – where the matter is already listed for trial in February 2022.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VII
Number of paragraphs:	8
Date of last submission/s:	11 August 2021
Date of hearing:	11 August 2021
Place:	Brisbane
The Applicant attended as a self-represented litigant by telephone.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Qld) Ltd
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Norman & Kingston

ORDERS

BRC4768/2012
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:	MS LETHBRIDGE
AND:	MR TAYLOR
AND:	INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 AUGUST 2021

THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:

1.That the Application in a Case filed by the Applicant mother on 5 August 2021 shall be adjourned to the Final Hearing of this matter commencing at 10:00a.m. on 17 February 2022 in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lethbridge & Taylor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A.         These reasons were delivered ex tempore on 11 August 2021 and have been settled and corrected for grammatical errors in order to convey the precise intention of the Court.

1. The matter before the Court relates to one child.  The child’s name is X, who was born in 2007.  She is the child of the applicant mother, Ms Lethbridge, and the respondent father, Mr Taylor.  The mother is a self-represented litigant.  The father is represented by Mr Patterson from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service.  Mr Kingston is the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

2. The matter came before the Court as long ago as 2014, when it was before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – Division 1), and his Honour, Judge Lapthorn, made final orders whereby X was to live with her dad, and there were certain orders for time with the mother but there were certain conditions as well.  The matter has had a very troubled history.  The matter was back in Court in November 2019 before her Honour, Judge Purdon-Sully, who suspended certain parts of the earlier order and required the mother to attend upon Dr N, psychiatrist . 

3. The matter is currently listed for a final hearing for four days on 17, 18, 21 and 22 February 2022 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – Division 1 (formerly the Family Court of Australia). 

4. On 5 August 2021, the mother filed an Application in a Case seeking orders for time between her and the child, and the Court listed the matter for a Case Management Hearing today – conducted by telephone.  Appearing today are the persons to whom I have referred.

5. The mother’s argument, so far as the final hearing is concerned, is that the father has alienated the child and turned the child against the mother.  It may well be the case that at a final hearing the Court is satisfied that the mother is correct, that indeed the father has alienated the child and destroyed any chance of a relationship between the child and the mother.  But these are matters for a final hearing where the Court will have the chance to listen to cross-examination and hear all arguments from all sides; the mother, the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

6. Indeed, one of the important aspects will also, of course, be the evidence from the independent expert or experts.  As matters currently stand, the child is 14 years old, and according to the most recent family report is expressing a wish not to spend time with the mother.  As Mr Kingston rightly points out in his submission today, it may well be the case that after a final hearing the parenting orders are radically altered, and it may be the case that the Court makes a finding that the mother’s argument is correct.  But, as I say, these are not things that can be sorted out on the hearing of an interim application; they require cross-examination and findings by the Court after a full consideration of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

7. That is the first point to note, and that’s the first reason why I would adjourn this interim application to the trial in any event.  Having said that, there is the very great practical problem, which is that the Court simply does not have time between now and February 2022 to list this interim application.  The Court, as the parties will appreciate, deals with countless urgent parenting applications every single year.  The Court’s resources are precious and need to be allocated and allotted in an ordered manner.  The Court’s resources need to be allocated in a fair manner, keeping in mind not only the interests of the litigants in this case, but other litigants before the Court, many of whom have been waiting many years for trials to be heard.

8. Taking all these matters into account, the view that I have formed is that the only way to proceed is to adjourn the hearing of this interim application to the trial.  That means it will be adjourned to 17 February 2022. 

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard.

Associate:  

Dated:       17 September 2021