Madera& NARDOS (No.2)
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 3798
•12 December 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Madera& NARDOS (No.2) [2019] FCCA 3798
[2019] FCCA 3798
12 December 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Madera & Nardos (No.2), Judge Young of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered applications by the parties concerning child protection and disclosure of documents. The dispute involved allegations of abuse and family violence concerning the children, [X] and [Y], and their parents, MS MADERA and MR NARDOS.
The court was required to determine whether to suspend a prior order, the nature of the orders sought by the mother on a final basis, and the extent to which the Department for Child Protection and the South Australian Police Department should disclose documents and information relating to abuse allegations, investigations, and findings concerning the parties and the children. The court also considered the process for serving subpoenas on the Department for Child Protection and the implications of a *Rice & Asplund* application.
Judge Young reasoned that it was appropriate to suspend paragraph 18 of the previous orders to allow the mother to file an amended Initiating Application. The court exercised its power under section 69ZW of the *Family Law Act 1975* to request specific documents and information from both the Department for Child Protection and the South Australian Police Department, covering notifications, assessments, investigations, and outcomes of abuse allegations and family violence involving the children and parties. The court also imposed a restriction on the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer serving further subpoenas on the Department for Child Protection without leave.
The court ordered the mother to file an amended Initiating Application within 14 days. It also requested specific documents from the Department for Child Protection and the South Australian Police Department. Further, it ordered that neither party nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer could serve further subpoenas on the Department for Child Protection without leave. The proceedings were adjourned to 3 March 2020 for further consideration of the *Rice & Asplund* application.
The court was required to determine whether to suspend a prior order, the nature of the orders sought by the mother on a final basis, and the extent to which the Department for Child Protection and the South Australian Police Department should disclose documents and information relating to abuse allegations, investigations, and findings concerning the parties and the children. The court also considered the process for serving subpoenas on the Department for Child Protection and the implications of a *Rice & Asplund* application.
Judge Young reasoned that it was appropriate to suspend paragraph 18 of the previous orders to allow the mother to file an amended Initiating Application. The court exercised its power under section 69ZW of the *Family Law Act 1975* to request specific documents and information from both the Department for Child Protection and the South Australian Police Department, covering notifications, assessments, investigations, and outcomes of abuse allegations and family violence involving the children and parties. The court also imposed a restriction on the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer serving further subpoenas on the Department for Child Protection without leave.
The court ordered the mother to file an amended Initiating Application within 14 days. It also requested specific documents from the Department for Child Protection and the South Australian Police Department. Further, it ordered that neither party nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer could serve further subpoenas on the Department for Child Protection without leave. The proceedings were adjourned to 3 March 2020 for further consideration of the *Rice & Asplund* application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Discovery
-
Injunction
-
Standing
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Madera& NARDOS (No.2) [2019] FCCA 3798
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2