Mavridis & Mavridis

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 425

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Mavridis & Mavridis [2025] FedCFamC1F 425

File number(s): SYC 6978 of 2022
Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J
Date of judgment: 24 June 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Where the applicant sought to have time with the children reinstated – Where the respondent sought a restraint against the involvement of the applicant’s new partner in the proceedings – Where the Court dismissed the spend time with application and restrained the applicant against causing her new partner to become involved in the proceedings.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65DAA, 79, 102NA, 114)

Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; [2006] FamCA 1346

Hartley & Hartley [2021] FedCFamC1F 178

Isles and Nelissen (2022) FLC 94–092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Marvel & Marvel (No 2) (2010) 43 Fam LR 348; [2010] FamCAFC 101

Melounis & Melounis (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 778

Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072; [2001] FamCA 348

SS v AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 44
Date of hearing: 20 June 2025
The Applicant Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Apostle
Solicitor for the Respondent: Lonsdale & Associates Lawyers
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Mason of Mason Mia & Associates-Solicitors & Advocates

ORDERS

SYC 6978 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS MAVRIDIS

Applicant
AND:

MR MAVRIDIS

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALTOBELLI J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The oral application made by the Applicant Mother (“the Mother”) to adduce further evidence is hereby dismissed.

2.The Application in a Proceeding filed 5 May 2025 by the Mother is hereby dismissed, save and except for orders 4-9 and 11 which have been stood over to the Final Hearing.

3.The Mother be restrained pursuant to s 114(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) from causing her current partner, Mr B, from having any involvement in these proceedings including:

(a)position as Mackenzie friend to the Mother;

(b)communicating directly or indirectly with any legal representative, the father, Judicial Officers and /or Court Staff involved in these proceedings;

(c)attending in person or electronically in any Court proceedings; and

(d)viewing any documents in relation to these proceedings including subpoena material; and contacting by any means whatsoever the children’s schools, health treaters, NDIS, social workers, child protection services or any other person or entity associated with the children.

4.The matter is hereby adjourned to the Final Hearing commencing 7 August 2025 at 10:00 am.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation…

Continue reading Mavridis & Mavridis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mavridis & Mavridis [2025] FedCFamC1F 425
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 425
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Mavridis and Mr Mavridis are parents of two children. They appeared before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in relation to a parenting dispute. Ms Mavridis, the applicant, sought to have time with the children reinstated, while Mr Mavridis, the respondent, sought a restraint against the involvement of the applicant’s new partner in the proceedings. The Court was required to determine whether the applicant’s request for additional time with the children should be granted and whether a restraint order should be imposed to prevent the applicant’s new partner from participating in the proceedings.

In considering the applicant's request for additional time with the children, the Court had to weigh the best interests of the children against the views of the applicant and the respondent. The Court noted that the applicant had filed an affidavit on the morning of the hearing without seeking leave, which would have prejudiced the other parties and hindered the Court's ability to review the material in time. Consequently, this affidavit was not considered in the applicant's case. The Court also had to consider the developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs of the children, as well as the capacity of both parents to provide for those needs.

The Court dismissed the applicant’s request for additional time with the children, finding that it was not in the best interests of the children to grant the application at that stage. The Court also imposed a restraint order on the applicant, prohibiting her new partner from having any involvement in the proceedings, including acting as a Mackenzie friend, communicating with legal representatives or the respondent, attending court, or contacting the children’s schools or other associated persons. The Court concluded that the involvement of the new partner would be detrimental to the children and interfere with the proper administration of justice.

The Court adjourned the matter to the final hearing, scheduled for 7 August 2025 at 10:00 am. The orders made by the Court were that the applicant’s request for additional evidence be dismissed, and her application filed on 5 May 2025 be dismissed, except for certain orders that were stood over to the final hearing. The Court also restrained the applicant from causing her new partner to be involved in the proceedings in any way.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 6978 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS MAVRIDIS

Applicant

AND:

MR MAVRIDIS

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALTOBELLI J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The oral application made by the Applicant Mother (“the Mother”) to adduce further evidence is hereby dismissed.

2. The Application in a Proceeding filed 5 May 2025 by the Mother is hereby dismissed, save and except for orders 4-9 and 11 which have been stood over to the Final Hearing.

3. The Mother be restrained pursuant to s 114(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) from causing her current partner, Mr B, from having any involvement in these proceedings including:

(a) position as Mackenzie friend to the Mother;

(b) communicating directly or indirectly with any legal representative, the father, Judicial Officers and /or Court Staff involved in these proceedings;

(c) attending in person or electronically in any Court proceedings; and

(d) viewing any documents in relation to these proceedings including subpoena material; and contacting by any means whatsoever the children’s schools, health treaters, NDIS, social workers, child protection services or any other person or entity associated with the children.

4. The matter is hereby adjourned to the Final Hearing commencing 7 August 2025 at 10:00 am.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The experienced Independent Children’s Lawyer who had been representing the children in this matter withdrew, for reasons she explained to the Court. It was agreed that a new Independent Children’s Lawyer needed to be urgently appointed so that the final hearing may continue as scheduled.THE EVIDENCE In support of her case, the mother relied on the following material:(a)Outline of Case Document filed 20 June 2025;(b)Her Affidavit filed 5 May 2025;(c)Her affidavit filed 7 May 2025;(d)Affidavit of Ms E filed on 5 May 2025;(e)Affidavit of Mr F filed on 5 May 2025;(f)Affidavit of Ms G filed on 5 May 2025; and(g)Her Tender Bundle filed 20 June 2025. The Court notes that the mother filed an affidavit on 20 June 2025, the morning of the interim hearing. No leave was sought to rely on this affidavit. Even if leave was sought, the Court would have declined to grant the same. This is due to the prejudice that it would cause to the other parties in the case, as well as the inability of the Court to read it in time for the matter to be dealt with. Consequently, this affidavit was not considered in the mother’s case. In support of his case, the father relied on the following documents:(a)Outline of Case document filed 18 June 2025;(b)His affidavit filed 16 June 2025;(c)His Tender Bundle filed 20 June 2025; and(d)Various documents tendered during the proceedings and marked as Exhibits R1 – R16. The Independent Children’s Lawyer did not file any material for the interim hearing. THE APPLICABLE LAW The applicable law is found in Part VII of the Act. The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) (“the Amendment Act”) came into effect on 6 May 2024 and made substantive amendments to the previous Act which apply to these proceedings. In determining parenting matters under Part VII of the Act the Court must still regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s 60CA. The objects of Part VII are set out at s 60B:60B Objects of PartThe objects of this Part are:(a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and(b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989. Because s 60CA and s 60B refer to the best interests of the child, the Court must consider s 60CC which specifies how the Court determines what is in a child’s best interests:60CC How a court determines what is in a child’s best interestsDetermining child's best interests(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must:(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and(b) if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child—also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).General considerations(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:(i) the child; and(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);(b) any views expressed by the child;(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child’s family.(Emphasis in original)

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.