Mantle and Curtis

[2017] FCCA 856

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MANTLE & CURTIS [2017] FCCA 856

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – recovery order application which would result in children being removed from the mother’s primary care in Brisbane and placed with the father in (omitted) – serious allegations of risk but no recent evidence – matter transferred to Brisbane registry – Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.100B

Cases cited:

Redman & Redman [2014] FamCAFC 155

Applicant: MR MANTLE

Respondent: MS CURTIS

File Number: BRC 11205 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 21 April 2017

Date of Last Submission: 21 April 2017

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 21 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Hession

Solicitors for the Applicant: MIR Lawyers

The Respondent: Self-represented

ORDERS

1. The matter be transferred to the Brisbane Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia with an adjourned date to be advised.

2. The father be granted leave to file an amended contravention application on or before 19 May 2017.

3. The children X born (omitted) 1999, Y born (omitted) 2008, and Z born (omitted) 2003 be represented in these proceedings and it is requested that Legal Aid Queensland arrange such representation, and that the Independent Children’s Lawyer be at liberty to peruse and/or take copies of all documents filed in these proceedings upon the making of an appointment to do so with the Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

AND THE COURT REQUESTS THAT:

1. The matter be listed in the Brisbane Registry as early as practicable.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

BRC 11205 of 2011

MR MANTLE

Applicant

And

MS CURTIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally.  They have been corrected from the transcript.  Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This is an application by the father seeking issue of a recovery order of two children:  Z born (omitted) 2003 (“Z”), and Y born (omitted) 2008 (“Y”).  The effect of that order would be removing the children from their home in Brisbane and having them live with the father in (omitted) pending further orders of the Court.

3. It is necessary to set out the history of this matter.  There were Court proceedings in Brisbane which ended in 2014 when property orders were made.  There are also final parenting orders in place, which were made on 25 July 2013.  The parties have four children.  The oldest child, Ms H who is over the age of 18.  The second-oldest child, X (“X”), will be 18 in a few weeks’ time. The application only concerns the younger two children.

4. The orders made on 25 July 2013 provided for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the children subject to her being required…