Meadows & Meadows (No 4)
[2020] FamCAFC 125
•26 May 2020
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 4) | [2020] FamCAFC 125 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from an order dismissing an Application to Review a Registrar’s Decision – Reasons given in short form pursuant to s 94(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appeal has no merit – Abuse of process – Appeal dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 94(2A) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 24.10 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Meadows |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Meadows |
| FILE NUMBER: | PAC | 3509 | of | 2013 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EAA | 15 | of | 2020 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 26 May 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney (via video and telephone link) |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 1 April 2020 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 21 January 2020 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2020] FamCA 12 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPELLANT: | Litigant in person |
| THE RESPONDENT: | Litigant in person |
Orders
The Application in an Appeal filed on 26 February 2020 to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
Appeal no. EAA 15 of 2020 against the orders of a judge of the Family Court of Australia made on 21 January 2020 is dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.
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 (No. 4) 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).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
Appeal Number: EAA 15 of 2020
File Number: PAC 3509 of 2013
| Ms Meadows |
Appellant
And
| Mr Meadows |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 30 July 2019 a judge of the Family Court made final parenting and property orders as between Ms Meadows (“the mother”) and Mr Meadows (“the father”). The parenting orders concerned the parties’ child, B who was born on … 2011. His Honour’s orders broadly provided that the child would live with the father and spend time with the mother. The child would first spend unsupervised time with the mother each second Saturday from 10.00 am until 2.00 pm with a gradual increase over a six month period leading ultimately to the mother and child spending time with each other each second Saturday from 10.00 am until 6.00 pm. The orders also provided for the child to spend time with the mother on each Mother’s Day. The mother appealed those orders (Appeal no. EAA 77 of 2019).
As will be developed, this appeal (Appeal no. EAA 15 of 2020) is wholly lacking in merit and, in our opinion, represents an abuse of process. We will thus deliver short form reasons for our conclusion (s 94(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
While the mother’s appeal from the orders made on 30 July 2019 was pending, on 13 November 2019, the mother attempted to file an Initiating Application in which she sought orders for time with the child during the 2019/2020 Christmas school holiday period and “special occasion time” being the child’s birthday on … 2019. On 16 December 2019 the mother attempted to file an Application in a Case in which she sought urgent interim orders seeking leave to file updated affidavits of medical professionals on whose opinion she sought to rely and other orders, including an urgent injunction preventing the father from entering the room when the child is speaking to the mother on the telephone. The mother supported these applications with an affidavit in which she said that the final parenting orders of 30 July 2019 did not include provision for the child to spend time with her on special occasions, school holidays or Christmas. She also said that since the making of the final parenting orders, she has become aware of recent events which gave rise to concerns that the child is at risk in the father’s household.
Both the mother’s Initiating Application and the Application in a Case came before a Registrar of the Family Court on 19 December 2019 and each application was dismissed pursuant to r 24.10(1)(e) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), that is, the documents on their face appeared to the Registrar to be an abuse of process. On the same day, the mother then sought a review of the Registrar’s decision.
That application for review was heard on 10 January 2020 by a judge of the Family Court and dismissed on 21 January 2020.
On 20 March 2020 the mother appealed from that order. This appeal was consolidated with the appeal from the final parenting orders made on 30 July 2019 and heard at the same time.
The orders sought in the rejected applications referred to specific periods of time, Christmas 2019 and the child’s birthday in that same year. Obviously, those periods have passed. Even were the appeal to have succeeded (and we are of the view that no error of fact or principle in the primary judge’s reasons and orders has been demonstrated), there is no order to be made nor application to be revisited.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ) delivered on 26 May 2020.
Associate:
Date: 26 May 2020
0
0
2