Linderboom & Egan

[2007] FamCA 1406

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LINDERBOOM & EGAN [2007] FamCA 1406

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Linderboom

RESPONDENT: Ms Egan

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Harris Lieberman

FILE NUMBER: AYC 268 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 29 November 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Albury

PLACE HEARD: Albury

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 29 November 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr O'Shannessy

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kell Moore Solicitors Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Boyle

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Harris Lieberman

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ALBURY

FILE NUMBER: AYC 268 of 2007

MR LINDERBOOM  

Applicant

And

MS EGAN  

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a parenting application that came before the Court during this circuit. 

2. Up until the commencement of the circuit, the father had been represented by lawyers but he told me that he had to cease that representation because he could not afford to continue.

3. Unfortunately, there has not been sufficient time for the matter to be determined at the circuit and it is not a simple case.  The difficulty however is that there have been interim orders in existence which on any view, have not only failed to work but also caused angst for the husband, the wife and most importantly, the children.

4. The father confirmed that although he did not understand why the children were behaving the way they were, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a small change in the last three weeks, it was still not satisfactory and he agreed that the orders should be suspended.

5. The father told me that he intends to continue to be unrepresented because he cannot afford to pay for the services of a lawyer.  However, I explained to him the benefits of having a legal practitioner at the final trial.  I have explained to him the dilemma that a judge faces in relation to ensuring that he is not disadvantaged whilst at the same time not providing him any advantage.  He said he understood that.

6. There was discussion between all parties about the prospect of the matter being transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court but having regard to the complexities of the case, it was agreed that it would be most likely beyond the capacity of that court to deal with the matter on circuit in Albury and as a consequence, most likely to be sent back to the Family Court of Australia.

7. In the circumstances, I indicated I hade little choice but to transfer the matter to Melbourne where it can be placed in a call-over list for fixing in the early part of 2008.  I have explained to the father that the matter cannot be heard before April having regard to our current resources and he understood that.

8. Accordingly, I have made the orders suspending the existing arrangements by consent of all parties and transferring the proceedings to Melbourne.

I certify that the preceding Eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate

Date: 29 November 2007