Munday and Munday

[2009] FamCA 898

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MUNDAY & MUNDAY [2009] FamCA 898

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child should spend time with – interim application – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed

APPLICANT: Mr Munday

RESPONDENT: Ms Munday

FILE NUMBER: MLC 196 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 15 May 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 15 May 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms C. Williams

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Robert Halliday & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER Ms M.E. Agresta

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Marshalls & Dent

Orders

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That this matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Magellan Registrar.

2. That the interim application of the mother for parenting orders in the terms of the minute proposed by the mother on 24 April 2009 be dismissed.

3. That the costs of the husband and incidental of this day be reserved.

4. That liberty be reserved to the wife to vary or set aside the order I have made reserving costs and to do so by not later than 30 May 2009.

IT IS DIRECTED:

1. That the reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and when transcribed that copies be made available to the parties.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 196 of 2009

MR MUNDAY

Applicant

And

MS MUNDAY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The mother does not attend court today.  I am advised from the bar table that her solicitor is not available. Ms Williams of counsel appears on behalf of the applicant father.  Ms Agresta appears on behalf of the independent children's lawyer.  It is their view that there are a number of matters to be attended to by the parties prior to the matter progressing further in the court or preparation of the family report.  That appears to have been the arrangement that was entered into on 24 April 2009 and orders made which are supportive of it. 

2. For the avoidance of doubt, before a family report is commenced the father must provide a certificate as to his compliance with paragraph 12 of orders made on 24 April 2009 that he undertake and complete the sex offenders course that he was required to undertake consequent upon being found guilty of sexual abuse in relation to a child. 

3. The father should provide a certificate of completion of whatever course is offered by Relationships Australia for the men's group meetings and the anger management course referred to in paragraph 18 of the said orders.

4. The parties should undergo the psychiatric assessment referred to in paragraph 13 of the orders made 24 April 2009, which to my understanding was to be done by Dr S.

5. A report should be provided by the mother as to her compliance with paragraph 15 of the said orders, that is attendance by her upon Bridge Centre, Salvation Army in relation to alcohol education and rehabilitation. 

6. Ms Agresta has clarified that her information from the solicitors for the mother indicates that they were not aware that the matter would be listed today.  That is possible given that the orders of 24 April 2009 do not appear to make any mention of today as an adjourned date. 

7. However, I recall the matter, and the appearance by Ms Einsiedel on 24 April 2009.  My handwritten minute of the orders that I then pronounced include an adjournment of the proceedings to today for a determination of the application by the mother for interim parenting orders in the terms of the minute that she had distributed to each of the other parties on that day.  That constituted her application.  As she is not here to prosecute it today, I dismiss it. The effect is that there are no interim applications before the court.

8. Insofar as further case management is concerned, the matter should return to this list after the family report is released.  I do not want to put the parties to inconvenience and costs unnecessarily by arbitrarily fixing a date, so I will leave it to the child dispute services section to remind the Magellan Registrar that the matter is to go into the duty list after the release of the family report. 

9. Counsel for the father makes an application that the father's costs of this day be reserved.  That is an ex parte application, of which I am not satisfied the respondent wife has notice.  I will however reserve the costs and give the wife liberty to apply to vary or set aside my order in relation to the reservation of costs.  Costs will have to be considered at a later date. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett 

Associate: 

Date:  18 September 2009