Mandalig and Mandalig

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MANDALIG & MANDALIG [2019] FCCA 3022

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting dispute – father seeking to see teenage sons – in alternative father seeking family therapy – children expressing strong opposition to any contact with father – children enmeshed with mother – mother detesting father – children’s’ views immutable – family therapy hopeless as children refuse it – orders made as sought by the mother.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.60CC

Cases cited:

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte (2016) FLC 93-698
R & R [2000] FamCA 43
Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Applicant: MR MANDALIG

Respondent: MS MANDALIG

File Number: MLC 2440 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Burchardt

Hearing dates: 19 and 20 September 2019

Date of Last Submission: 20 September 2019

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 31 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Stanley

Solicitors for the Applicant: Crestway Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Lynch

Solicitors for the Respondent: Peter Lynch Lawyer

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Bonney

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Victoria Legal Aid

ORDERS

1. That the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, with the Mother to notify the Father of any proposed significant long term decisions and to take the Father’s views into account, with the Mother having the final decision.

2. That the children live with the Mother.

3. That the children’s time with the Father be subject to their wishes.

4. That in the event that the children express a wish to communicate

   
   

   or spend time with the Father, the Mother will facilitate this request.

5. That the Airport Watch List order be discharged.

6. That the Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed in this matter be discharged.

7. That the Mother be at liberty to travel with the children both inside and outside of the Commonwealth of Australia, with overseas travel not to exceed four weeks.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

MLC 2440 of 2015

MR MANDALIG

Applicant

And

MS MANDALIG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introductory

1. This is a parenting dispute about the best interests of three children: X, born … 2004; Y, born … 2006; and Z, born … 2007.  The applicant father, whose position has altered from time to time, seeks, as his primary position, that the parties be referred to family therapy and the children spend time with him in each alternate weekend.  The respondent mother’s position is that the children should spent no time whatever with their father and that she have sole parental responsibility.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer, albeit reluctantly, supports the mother’s position.

2. For the reasons that follow, and likewise reluctantly, I propose to make the orders sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Agreed or Uncontested Relevant Matters

1. The father was born on … 1964 and came to Australia in 1992.  He is employed as a tradesman and…