MARKES & MARKES

Case [2018] FCCA 2663


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MARKES & MARKES [2018] FCCA 2663
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Contravention application – parties agreed in parenting orders providing for children to spend time with father – orders provide for mother to deliver the children to the father’s place of residence – two earlier contravention applications – contraventions include not delivering children to father’s residence during school holidays, thwarting pre-paid holidays – further contravention application arising from non-delivery of children during 2017 Christmas holidays – respondent admits non-delivery of children but advances defence of reasonable excuse for not having done so – urgent s 11F child inclusive conference ordered – elder child unable to attend conference due to being away on school camp– reasonable excuse not established – orders made for delivery of submissions addressing the question of penalty – interim orders made for make-up time and for children to spend two consecutive weeks with applicant over Christmas holiday – respondent seeks to vacate orders for make-up time – order made to facilitate psychiatric assessment of respondent for the purposes of penalty hearing – respondent does not obtain psychiatric assessment – application in a case filed seeking stay of declaration of contravention pending application for extension of time in which to appeal making of declaration – applicable principles – potential for imposition of term of imprisonment to impact upon respondent’s employability even if sentence suspended – consequential effect on children – best interests of children a significant consideration – stay granted.

Legislation:

Family Court Rules, rr.22.11

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.11F, 70NAA, 70NAC, 70NAE, 70NAF, 70NBA, 70NDA, 70NDB, 70NEA, 70NFA, 70NFB, 70NFG

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05, 25B.04

Cases cited:

Adamson & Adamson (2014) FLC 93-622

Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106

Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112
Camden & Chalk [2009] FamCAFC 10
Carson & Hillman [2018] FamCA 605
Elspeth, Mark & John v Peter (Penalty and Costs) (2007) 37 Fam LR 696
Grange & Grange and Ors (No 2) [2018] FamCA 241
Gravis & Major [2010] FamCAFC 239
Greer & Bedelia [2009] FamCAFC 136
Huda & Huda & Laham [2018] FamCAFC 85
Lockley & Bardot [2016] FamCAFC 185
Michael Wilson & Partners v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Ongal & Materns [2015] FamCAFC 68
Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Redmond & Stolz [2015] FamCAFC 116
Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia (2014) 230 FCR 82
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 81 ALJR 1190
Tindall & Saldo [2015] FamCAFC 1
Vakuata v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568

Applicant: MR MARKES
Respondent: MS MARKES
File Number: MLC 9396 of 2009
Judgment of: Judge A Kelly
Hearing date: 14 September 2018
Date of Last Submission: 14 September 2018
Delivered at: Melbourne
Orders pronounced: 14 September 2018
Delivered on: 21 September 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel…

Continue reading MARKES & MARKES

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
MARKES & MARKES [2018] FCCA 2663
Case
[2018] FCCA 2663
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Markes & Markes* concerned a contravention application brought by the father against the mother regarding parenting orders that stipulated the children were to spend time with him, with the mother responsible for delivering them to his residence. This was not the first contravention application, with previous proceedings addressing the mother's failure to deliver the children during school holidays and thwarting pre-paid holidays. The current application arose from the mother's non-delivery of the children during the 2017 Christmas holidays.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the mother had a reasonable excuse for not delivering the children to the father's residence as required by the parenting orders. The court also had to consider the implications of a potential declaration of contravention, including the penalty that might be imposed and its consequential effect on the children, whose best interests were a significant consideration. The mother sought a stay of a declaration of contravention pending an application for an extension of time to appeal.

The court found that the mother had not established a reasonable excuse for the non-delivery of the children, noting that an elder child's inability to attend a child-inclusive conference due to a school camp did not constitute a reasonable excuse. The court considered the potential impact of a term of imprisonment, even if suspended, on the mother's employability and, consequently, on the children. Applying the principles relevant to granting a stay, particularly the best interests of the children, the court determined that a stay was warranted.

The court ordered that all times be abridged and the mother's application for a stay be heard. Pending the determination of her application for an extension of time to appeal and any subsequent appeal, the declaration of contravention made on 1 March 2018 was stayed. The further hearing of the contravention application was adjourned, and costs were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

UPON THE UNDERTAKING of the respondent, MS MARKES, by her counsel that she will prosecute with due expedition her application for an extension of time in which to appeal from the declaration made by paragraph 1 of the Order made on 1 March 2018, and any appeal arising thereon,

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.

All times be abridged and the respondent’s application in a case filed on 11 September 2018 be listed for hearing this day.

2.

Pending the determination of the application in an appeal filed by the respondent on 11 September 2018 and any appeal, the declaration made by paragraph 1 of the Order made on 1 March 2018 be stayed.

3.

The further hearing and determination of the contravention application filed on 1 February 2018 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

4.

The costs of and incidental to this day are reserved.

5.

Liberty to apply on reasonable notice.

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.