Meadows and Meadows (No 2)

[2020] FamCA 325

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 2) [2020] FamCA 325

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Children – Prima Facie case against the father not established.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT: Mr Meadows

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3509 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 28 April 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Henderson J

HEARING DATE: 27 April 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Smythe

Orders

1. The mother’s Contravention Application filed 11 February 2020 is dismissed.

2. These orders have been amended pursuant to paragraph 17.02(1)(e) of the Family Law Rules 2004.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1. The mother’s appeal has been heard and is awaiting a judgment from the Full Court.

2. The mother’s position is she is unable to attend supervised changeover to commence spending time with her child in accordance of Orders of Justice Baumann of 30 July 2019 and 19 September 2019.

3. There is no justiciable issues raised in the mother’s Application in a Case filed 3 April 2020 consequent upon the dismissal of the mother’s Contravention Application.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Meadows & Meadows has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3509 of 2013

Ms Meadows

Applicant

And

Mr Meadows

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The matter of Meadows is a Contravention application heard by way of Microsoft Teams with the father represented by Ms Smythe, his lawyer, and the mother on the telephone.

2. The Contravention is the mother’s application for alleged contraventions by the father of Orders of this Court, application she filed on 11 February 2020 together with an Affidavit in support. The mother represents herself, and Ms Smythe represented the father. The father denies he has contravened any orders, thus this judgment concerns whether he has a prima facie case to answer.

3. The material I read was as follows:

   a)For the mother:

   i)Application for Contravention and an Affidavit filed 11 February 2020;

   ii)An updating Affidavit and annexures filed 14 April 2020;

   iii)The primary Judgment of Baumann J of 30 July 2019;

   iv)An additional Judgment, which I have called the amendment Judgment, of his Honour delivered on 19 September 2019;

   v)A further Judgment, being a stay of his Honour’s Judgment pending an appeal filed by the mother and dated 29 October 2019;

   vi)The mother’s amended Notice of Appeal;

   vii)The mother tendered Mother’s Exhibit 1, which is an email from the mother to the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer dated…