Loddington and Derringford

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LODDINGTON & DERRINGFORD [2008] FamCA 380

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING – varying final orders on interim bases – reluctance to change on strong but untested family consultant’s report.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Goode and Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

APPLICANT: MS LODDINGTON

RESPONDENT: MR DERRINGFORD

FILE NUMBER: AYC 390 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 30 May 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE: 27 MAY 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MS WHEELER

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: LORETTA TERRILL FAMILY LAWYERS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR ALLEN

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: TOLHURST DRUCE & EMMERSON

Orders

1. That the mother’s oral application to vary existing parenting orders be dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: AYC 390  of 2007

MS LODDINGTON

Applicant

And

MR DERRINGFORD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. M and E are twins born in June 2004. 

2. The parents are Mr Derringford and Ms Loddington.  They had a relationship for something like three months from October 2003 to December 2003. 

3. In December 2003, the mother found she was pregnant.  The parties remained together under the one roof but separated in May 2004.  Importantly, in the following month, the children were born prematurely.

4. It was only days after the birth of the children that the father and the mother had a disagreement.  When the children were less than two months old, the parenting litigation began in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.  Now, almost four years later, the parties are still in heated disagreement about what time should be spent with the children.

5. This specific judgment is about the interim period until I can determine the final disposition of the proceedings. 

6. On 9 August 2006, the parties sought and obtained final orders in the Federal Magistrates Court at Shepparton.  In summary, those orders provided for:

   ·Equal shared parental responsibility;

   ·That the children live with the mother;

   ·That the children spend time with the father until the end of 2006 for 56 hours per fortnight on specific days;

   ·That the children spend time with the father throughout 2007 for 80 hours per fortnight on specific days; and

   ·That the children spend time with the father from 1 January 2008 on a fortnightly basis as follows:

   (a)10.00am on Wednesday to 6.00pm on Thursday;

   (b)10.00am Friday to 6.00pm Sunday; and

   (c)10.00am Monday to 6.00pm Tuesday.

7. There are some ancillary times but in essence, in 2008, the father is to spend time with the children in part or whole of seven days each fortnight.  During those seven days, he spends four overnights. 

8. The mother says that on an interim basis, that is too much. 

9. On an interim basis, the father says it should be left alone until trial.

10. On 29 June 2007, the mother filed an application to vary the 2006 orders.  She…