McNamara and Rose and Anor

[2012] FamCA 302

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCNAMARA & ROSE AND ANOR [2012] FamCA 302

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – No appearance by parties

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: K McNamara

RESPONDENT: Ms Rose

2^ND RESPONDENT: Mr McNamara

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6683 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 24 January 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 24 January 2012

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Fiona R McGregor

THE 2^ND RESPONDENT No appearance

Orders

1. That all extant applications are struck out.

2. That the proceedings are removed from the pending cases list.

3. That the reasons this day be transcribed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym McNamara & Rose and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6683 of 2010

K McNamara

Applicant

And

Ms Rose

Respondent

Mr McNamara
2^nd Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 3 November 2011 an application was filed by K McNamara (“K”).  K is a child who has just turned 17 years of age.  He is the child of Ms Rose and Mr McNamara.  Those parties have an enormous litigious history in this Court that culminated in proceedings before Mushin J in 2004.  On 27 January 2004 Mushin J made parenting orders which included that K live with Ms Rose and that she have sole responsibility for his care.  Importantly an order was made that Mr McNamara be restrained from communicating with schools and being anywhere near Ms Rose.

2. In addition to a number of parenting orders, an order was made that Mr McNamara be restrained from removing any of the children from the Commonwealth of Australia and then made an order that the Australian Federal Police place the children’s names on the airport watch list.  Perhaps unusually his Honour went on to make an order under section 118 of the Family Law Act restraining Mr McNamara from making any application including an application for parenting orders of any sort for a period of three years.  The material discloses that K went to live with his father. 

3. Mr McNamara has made previous applications which have not necessarily solved any of the problems but on 28 November this year arising out of the application that I earlier mentioned, a number of orders were made varying the orders of Mushin J.  Those orders were made by consent.  The one order that seems not to have been resolved was an order relating to a second child, A, who is now 14 years of age.  That child is also the subject of the orders of Mushin J and the senior registrar adjourned the proceedings to today to enable Mr McNamara to seek leave to institute proceedings notwithstanding Mushin J had restrained him from so doing.

4. The matter has been called and there is no appearance of any of the parties.  There is no correspondence on the file indicating that the matter is no longer to proceed.  There is no suggestion that the matter is resolved.  It being the formal application of the child, K and there being no appearance of either of the parents of A, I will strike all proceedings out from the list on the basis of want of prosecution. 

5. In the matter of McNamara & Rose and Anor, all extant applications are struck out.  All proceedings are removed from the list of cases and I will direct the reasons be transcribed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 24 January 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  20 April 2012