MADSEN & FANCHER

Case [2016] FCCA 142


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MADSEN & FANCHER [2016] FCCA 142

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – application by the mother seeking permission to travel internationally with the child – undefended hearing in circumstances where sufficient due process afforded to the father – application granted – mother granted sole parental responsibility for both the purpose of the Family Law Act 1975 and the Australian Passports Act 2005.

FAMILY LAW – Costs – application for costs – costs granted.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.43, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60I, 60J, 61DA, 65DAA(5), 65DAC, 69ZN, 106A, 117
Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner) Regulations 2008, Regulation 26(4)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.4.03, 10.02, 13.03B, 16.05, 21.10, 22A.02
Australian Passports Act 2005, s.11
International Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 27
Civil Dispute Resolution Act2011, s.3

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40
Broughton & Broughton [2014] FamCAFC 206
Kuebler & Kuebler (1978) FLC 90-434
Line & Line (1996) 21 FamLR 259

Re JJT & Ors; Ex Parte Victoria Legal Aid [1998] FLC 92-812
Prior & Burton (No.2) [2014] FCCA 2723

Bryant v Hawkesbury Radio Communication Co-operative Society Limited [2014] NSWSC 848
Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd (No.5) [2014] NSWSC 437
Setka v Abbott [2013] VSCA 345
Yara Australia P/L v Oswal [2013] VSCA 337
Haset Sali v SPC Ltd [1993] HCA 47
Aon Risk Services & ANU [2009] HCA 27
AMS & AIF (1999) CLR 160
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Proprietary Limited & Armstrong Strategic Managing and Marketing (2013) 303 ALR 199

Other Articles Cited:

Harman, “Should Mediation be the first step in all Family Law Act proceedings”? (2016) 27 ADRJ  1)

Applicant: MS MADSEN
Respondent: MR FANCHER
File Number: PAC 4716 of 2015
Judgment of: Judge Harman
Hearing date: 9 December 2015
Date of Last Submission: 9 December 2015
Delivered at: Parramatta
Orders Pronounced: 9 December 2015
Delivered on: 5 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr Humphreys of Godden Lawyers
No appearance by the Respondent

ORDERS

  1. Ms Madsen shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2008.

  2. X shall live with her mother.

  3. IT IS NOTED that the intention of the above Order for sole parental responsibility is to vest sole parental responsibility in Ms Madsen for both the purpose of the Family Law Act 1975 and section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005.

  4. Dispense with any requirement for the signature of X’s father Mr Fancher for any Application for the issue of an Australian Passport or travel document.

  5. Pursuant to section 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 Ms Madsen shall be and is hereby authorised and permitted to remove X from the Commonwealth of Australia at such times, for such periods and to travel to such destinations as she may desire.

  6. IT IS NOTED that these Orders are made in the absence of Mr Fancher who was personally served with process 29 October 2015 and has failed to…

Continue reading MADSEN & FANCHER

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Madsen and Fancher [2016] FCCA 142
Case
[2016] FCCA 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Ms Madsen (the mother) seeking permission to travel internationally with her child, X. The application was heard undefended, with the court satisfied that sufficient due process had been afforded to the father. The court was asked to determine whether to grant the mother sole parental responsibility for X for the purposes of both the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and the *Australian Passports Act 2005* (Cth), and to grant permission for international travel.

The court's reasoning centred on the mother's application for sole parental responsibility, which would enable her to travel internationally with X. Having been satisfied that the father had been afforded due process, the court proceeded to consider the merits of the mother's application. The court also considered a separate application for costs.

The court ordered that Ms Madsen have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born in 2008. It was further ordered that X live with her mother. The court also granted the application for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Ms Madsen shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2008.

X shall live with her mother.

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.