Matlock and Veiversse

[2009] FamCA 444

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MATLOCK & VEIVERSSE [2009] FamCA 444

FAMILY LAW – CONSENT ORDERS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Matlock

RESPONDENT: Mr Veiversse

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12288 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 12 May 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: The Honourable Justice Cronin

HEARING DATE: 12 May 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms J.P. Spehr

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Victoria Legal Aid

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr R.K. McIvor

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Moores Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: Mr N.M. Eidelson

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER McCarthy Hoey

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the mother engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That my reasons be transcribed and be placed on the court file.

4. That all extant applications be otherwise dismissed and all proceedings be removed from the list of cases awaiting a hearing.

5. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 12288 of 2007

MS MATLOCK

Applicant

And

MR VEIVERSSE

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application that has come in to me as the first day of the less adversarial trial process.  The parties are all represented.  I have had the advantage of reading a file which, sadly, has a long and unfortunate history. 

2. There is some confusion about exactly what was to happen today, but I have had the advantage of reading a very comprehensive and helpful report from the family consultant who saw all of the parties. 

3. There are no issues involving the children that would place them at risk, from any material I have read on the file and I am satisfied that these orders are in the best interests of the children.

I certify that the preceding Three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  21 May 2009