MEDWOOD & PEDERSON

[2021] FCCA 628

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEDWOOD & PEDERSON [2021] FCCA 628

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Ex tempore judgment.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.11F, 68L(2)

Applicant: MS MEDWOOD

Respondent: MR PEDERSON

File Number: DGC 4284 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Burchardt

Hearing date: 2 March 2021

Date of Last Submission: 2 March 2021

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 2 March 2021

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Hession

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ce Family Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Bacon

Solicitors for the Respondent: Manby & Scott Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The matter be adjourned to this Court for mention before Judge Burchardt on 18 May 2021at 9.30 am.

2. Pursuant to s.68L(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the interests of the child X born  in 2019 be independently represented by a lawyer AND IT IS REQUESTED that Victoria Legal Aid arrange such independent representation.

3. Forthwith upon appointment by the said Victoria Legal Aid or otherwise the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall file a Notice of Address for Service.

4. Within 48 hours of notification of such appointment the solicitors for the respective parties shall provide to the Independent Children’s Lawyer copies of all relevant documents relied upon.

5. Pursuant to s.11F of the Family Law Act 1975, the mother, the father and the child X (“X”)born  in 2019 attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Regional Coordinator, Child Dispute Services at the Dandenong Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia via Microsoft Teams with the Mother and child to be interviewed at 9.00 am on 11 May 2021 and the father to be interviewed at 10:30 am for the purposes of a short form written memorandum, which the family consultant is to provide within seven days. 

6. Pursuant to Rule 13.04 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, interim orders are made by consent in accordance with the attached Minutes of proposed orders signed by the parties and placed on the Court file.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The solicitors for the Applicant file a clean, certified, electronic copy of the Minute in Word Format to the chambers of Judge Burchardt by way of email to [email protected] within seven (7) days. 

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.

B.If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.

C.Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme (“the Scheme”) for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the Final Hearing.

D.Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.

E.If section 102NA applies and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise the Court.

ENGROSSED MINUTES

THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:

1. X live with her mother.

2. X spend time with her father as follows:

   (a)each Wednesday from 7.30am until 5.00pm;

   (b)each Friday from 7.30am until 5.00pm; and

   (c)commencing Sunday 14 March 2021 and each alternate Sunday thereafter from 12.30pm until 3.30pm.

3. Changeover for the purposes of order 2 herein occur at the mother’s home.

4. Each of the parties forthwith download and use the “Family Wizard” parenting application to communicate about X.

5. Each parent advises the other in writing, including by text message or email, of any change in their address and contact details including mobile telephone numbers within 24 hours of such change occurring.

6. Each parent gives all necessary consents and authorities to enable the other parent to obtain information concerning X’s healthcare.

7. Each parent attend and complete a post separation parenting course and provide the other with a certificate of completion.

8. Each parent, their servants and/or agents are restrained by injunction from denigrating the other parent or the other parent’s family to X, or within the presence or hearing of X, or from allowing any other person to do so

9. Certify for Counsel.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Medwood & Pederson is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 4284 of 2020

MS MEDWOOD

Applicant

And

MR PEDERSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

1. The dispute between the parties is within a relatively narrow compass.  They concern first and foremost the amount of time that X spends with the father.  X, it should be noted, was born as recently as  2019.  She is still very, very young, and, putting the matter shortly, in my view, the father's proposal, notwithstanding that I am conscious of what he says in his affidavit about his relationship with X, is overly ambitious on an interim basis.  It may be revisited following the 11F interview.

2. The times proposed by the mother are apparently those that have been in place for at least some time, albeit it only a short time, and they are, at least on the face of it and emphasising that this is an interim hearing only, in my view, age appropriate, especially bearing in mind the exigencies of breastfeeding. 

3. So far as child care is concerned, I hear what the parties say.  I am going to leave that as it is for the moment, but frankly if the father is really able to care for the child for more extended periods, this would obviously benefit the mother if she was not paying child care fees.  Once again, that is a matter that can be revisited when the matter comes back in May.  Likewise, the question of changeover can be revisited then. 

4. I appreciate that the father's position is that communication is perfectly okay, but that does not appear to be that of the mother.  I am not in a position to adjudicate that in any meaningful way at this stage.  So I do not propose to make the order about FamilyWizard at this stage, so I do not propose to make the order about FamilyWizard in the meantime.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt

Associate: 

Date: 30 March 2021