Meadows & Meadows (No. 8)

[2021] FamCA 305

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Meadows & Meadows (No. 8) [2021] FamCA 305

File number(s):	PAC 3509 of 2013
Judgment of:	REES J
Date of judgment:	14 May 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the applicant seeks personal protection orders under section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where this application may be determined without a substantive application – Application dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 68B
Number of paragraphs:	47
Date of hearing:	12 May 2021
Place:	Sydney
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Respondent:	Self-Represented

ORDERS

PAC 3509 of 2013

BETWEEN:

MS MEADOWS

Applicant

AND:

MR MEADOWS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	REES J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.That the application of Ms Meadows filed 22 July 2020 seeking orders pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) be dismissed.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Rees J:

1. Proceedings in relation to parenting and property between Ms Meadows (“the mother”) and Mr Meadows (“the father”) were heard and determined by reasons for judgment delivered and orders made on 30 July 2019. Relevantly, in relation to the child B who was born in 2011, the following orders were made:

   (8)That the child shall communicate with the mother by telephone as agreed between the parents but failing agreement on at least between the hours of 6.30pm and 7.30pm each Wednesday and each non-contact Saturday.

   (9)That the mother’s telephone conversations with the child, as provided for in Order 8 hereof shall be supervised by the father, or his nominee, for the next three (3) months only and are not to be lengthy.  The father may terminate the call at the conclusion of fifteen (15) minutes of time or at any time he concludes the mother’s conversation with the child has become inappropriate.

2. The mother appealed against the parenting and property orders.

3. The Full Court dismissed the mother’s appeal but made reference to the proper construction of Order 9. In the judgment of the Full Court delivered on 26 May 2020, their Honours stated, in relation to Order 9:

   31.We note that in related proceedings brought by the mother while this appeal was pending, another judge of the Family Court expressed the view that although the primary judge’s orders provide that the telephone calls between the mother and child would not be supervised after the expiration of the three month period referred to in the order, his Honour…