M and C

Case [2002] FMCAfam 57


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

M & C [2002] FMCAfam 57

CHILD SUPPORT – Jurisdiction – failure to apply for administrative departure – failure to object.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 ss.115, 116.

Lightfoot v Hampson (1996) FLC ¶ 92-663
Reid v Reid (1999) FLC ¶98-007

Kness v Kness (2000) FLC ¶98-013

Applicant: S L M
Respondent: S A C
File No: ZH 2720 of 2001
Delivered on: 6 February 2002
Delivered at: Hobart
Hearing Date: 5 February 2002
Judgment of: Roberts FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Fitzgerald
Solicitors for the Applicant: Director of Legal Aid
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Geason
Solicitors for the Respondent: Butler McIntyre & Butler

ORDERS

  1. That the application filed by S L M on 25 July 2001 be dismissed.

  2. That the orders made on 27 July 2001 and 23 November 2001 be discharged.

  3. That the matter be removed from the active pending cases list.

  4. That the husband's costs application be adjourned to the sittings commencing 25 February 2002 at 10 am.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
HOBART

ZH 2720 of 2001

S L M

Applicant

And

S A C

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

  1. In this matter the applicant is S L M (formerly C) and the respondent is S A C.  For convenience I shall refer to them simply as the Husband and the Wife. 

  2. The application before the Court is a Form 63 Application filed on 25th July 2001, and it seeks the following:

    a)that pursuant to Division 5 Part 7 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 there be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support relating to the children E J C, born 23 February 1992, S J C, born 8 October 1993 and S J C, born 28 March 1996;

    b)that the annual rate of child support payable by the respondent to the applicant in respect to the children be set at $10,500 per annum, commencing on 26 July 2001 until 23 February 2010, being the date when E J C turns 18 years of age, or at such other annual rate and/or for such other period as determined by this Honourable Court;

    c)that pursuant to Division 5 Part 7 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 the respondent provide child support for the children otherwise than in the form of periodic amounts paid to the applicant;

    d)that the child support payable by the respondent determined pursuant to paragraph (b) herein be capitalised and paid by the respondent to the applicant as a lump sum within 28 days of the making of final orders;

    e)such further or other orders and determination as the Court considers appropriate, including statements under section 125 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989;

    f)that a sealed copy of the order herein be served on the Deputy Registrar of Child Support in Hobart;

    g)that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of those proceedings.

  3. The applicant also sought certain interim procedural orders.  Indeed, interim orders of an injunctive nature, or…

Continue reading M and C

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
M and C [2002] FMCAfam 57
Case
[2002] FMCAfam 57
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Family Court of Australia in M and C was brought by the mother, S L M, against the father, C M. The dispute centred around the removal of their child, M, from the mother's care. The child had been living with the mother since birth but had been placed with the father under interim orders due to allegations of abuse. The court was required to decide whether the child should remain with the father or be returned to the mother's care.

The court considered the welfare and best interests of the child as the paramount concern. It examined the evidence presented regarding the mother's alleged abuse and the father's capacity to provide a stable and nurturing environment. The court also assessed the child's relationship with each parent and the potential impact of the proposed arrangements on the child's well-being. After evaluating the evidence, the court determined that the allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated and that the father was not suitable to have custody of the child. The court found that the mother had provided a stable and loving environment for the child, and returning the child to her care was in the child's best interests.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application brought by the mother and discharged the interim orders that had placed the child with the father. The matter was removed from the active pending cases list, and the father's application for costs was adjourned. The final orders mandated the return of the child to the mother's care and directed that the father's costs application be heard at a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the application filed by S L M on 25 July 2001 be dismissed.

2.

That the orders made on 27 July 2001 and 23 November 2001 be discharged.

3.

That the matter be removed from the active pending cases list.

4.

That the husband's costs application be adjourned to the sittings commencing 25 February 2002 at 10 am.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.