Moffett & Varrone
[2023] FedCFamC1F 232
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Moffett & Varrone [2023] FedCFamC1F 232
File number(s): BRC 11482 of 2021 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 21 February 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – subject child almost 13 years of age – consent orders reached between parties – best interests of child Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of last submission/s: 21 February 2023 Date of hearing: 21 February 2023 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Aid Queensland Solicitor for the First Respondent: Family Centred Law Pty Ltd Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Stewart, Stewart Family Law ORDERS
BRC 11482 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS MOFFETT
Applicant
AND: MR VARRONE
First Respondent
MR PRITCHARD
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 FEBRUARY 2023
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That all previous parenting orders in relation to the child, X born 2010 (“the child”) are discharged.
2.That the child live with the First Respondent Father, Mr Varrone.
3.That the First Respondent father shall have sole parental responsibility for the child.
Time and communication
4.That the child be at liberty to spend time with the Applicant sister, Ms Moffett, in accordance with the child’s wishes.
5.That the child spend day time with and communicate with the Second Respondent, Mr Pritchard as agreed between the First Respondent Father and the Second Respondent.
Restraints
6.That the Applicant, First Respondent and Second Respondent:
(a)respect the privacy of the other parties and not question the child about the personal life of the other parties;
(b)speak of the other parties respectfully;
(c)not denigrate or insult the other parties in the presence or hearing of the child;
(d)not be complicit with others in denigrating or insulting the other parties and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parties in the hearing or presence of the child;
(e)not attempt to discuss any issues in dispute between the parties with the child or allow a third party to do so; and
(f)are restrained and an injunction is issued from allowing the child to have contact, of any nature, with Mr B.
7.That the Applicant and the First Respondent father shall keep the other informed of their residential address and contact telephone number and shall advise the other party within forty-eight (48) hours of any change occurring.
THE COURT ORDERS:
8.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Moffett & Varrone has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Settled from the oral reasons delivered)BAUMANN J:
These proceedings relate to a child, X, who was born 2010 and is approaching her 13th birthday. There is no doubt that X is much loved by her community and extended family. Sadly, X has had more than a few difficulties to deal with in her short life. Her biological mother, Ms C, sadly passed away in 2014 when X had not yet quite reached her fourth birthday. Although there is some dispute about why this occurred, there is no doubt that from the time of the child’s mother’s death and consistent perhaps with some of the traditions and customs of the indigenous families of which she was a member, she has been looked after in a range of different ways during her life.
The parties having reached final orders today to provide some certainty for X. I choose not to go into much of the history which has been problematic in this case and involves many allegations which the Court has not been required to determine. At the very least, I feel comfortable in acknowledging that for much of X’s life after the death of her mother, she was cared for by the person known as the great maternal grandfather, Mr Pritchard, and his late wife, Ms D, who sadly also passed away in 2022. The applicant in this case, Ms Moffett, is the sister of X. It seems to me clear from the history that her initial application filed in August 2021 was entirely motivated by Ms Moffett’s desire to provide some security and a safe environment for X.
Ms Moffett herself is a relatively young person, currently aged 24 years of age. Her application that the child live with her was opposed by both the father and the grandparents. At that stage, of course, Ms D was alive. Orders were made by a Senior Judicial Registrar on 21 January 2022 that the child live with the grandparents, however since then, it is clear on the evidence and particularly the family report prepared by Child Court Expert Ms E that was released in March 2022, that the father has colloquially “stood up to his responsibilities” and started to take a much more active role in the care of X than he may have done, for whatever reason, in the past.
The father also identifies as Indigenous and, perhaps by nature of his profession, was not always available However it seems to me on all the evidence, particularly the family report of Ms E, he now knows it is important in his daughter’s life that he take on the responsibility of a parent. Had he not done so in the genuine and clearly committed way that he has, I doubt whether Ms Moffett would have been comfortable to consent to the orders that she agrees to today. She has some level of confidence that the father will, as he says he will, take proper care of X. The fact that X feels more comfortable with the father now and understands the importance of Ms Moffett in her life but sees her in a subsidiary role, is reflected in the family report.
Clearly, one of the issues which has been difficult for this family and one which has in many ways been the “elephant in the room”, are the allegations made against Mr Pritchard, many of them historical and many of them going back to the eighties. When the matter came before me today, I was informed that Mr Pritchard is currently the subject of charges relating to some historical events in 1985 and some events in the early 2000s. It is not appropriate that this Court deal with those matters when they are before the criminal Court, and I made it clear to the parties today that they had the opportunity, no doubt with the assistance of the highly experienced and engaged independent children's lawyer, Ms Stewart, and their own legal representatives to seek to reach an agreement today to provide some certainty for X.
It is, in my view, a testament to the love which the three adults before me today have for X that they have been able to reach a form of words which I am satisfied are in her best interests at this time. They provide for the father, effectively independent of Mr Pritchard, to be responsible for the care arrangements of X, and long-term decision making and, as appropriate, provide and facilitate for X’s time with other people important to her, including her sister Ms Moffett and, in a protected way, Mr Pritchard while she moves through her teenage years. This order would not have been possible if the father had not, it seems to me, taken a much more responsible attitude to his responsibilities as a parent, and I give him credit for doing so.
I acknowledge that Ms Moffett’s involvement in the matter came about because of a concern she had for her sister, and the orders that she agrees to today with the benefit of legal advice might not deal with every concern, but she has shown some confidence in the father to do what the orders suggest he will do. I make no comment about Mr Pritchard’s future involvement in criminal proceedings, but it is a testament, I think, to his and his late wife’s commitment to X that at times where perhaps the mother and father were not actually available, sadly, because of the mother’s death, and the father because of other issues, they stepped into the breach and provided some excellent care for this child. If they had not done so, there is every reason to suspect this child may have been in institutional care by deed of the Department.
So as X begins the next stage of her life as a teenager, these orders, I think, have the maximum effect upon her of reducing the conflict between those who love her the most. If she is supported by all those who safely can look and care for her, then there is every reason to believe she will reach her potential and lead a happy life into the future. As to what relationship she seeks with whoever in her extended family, will ultimately be a matter for her.
I take into account under the principles of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) that this child is an Indigenous child. Clearly, her sister, Ms Moffett, the father and Mr Pritchard all identify as Indigenous, and I have no doubt that her heritage is important to her and will be properly nurtured and developed and educated as she grows older, if not already.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 5 May 2023
0
0