Nellums & Clemen
[2022] FedCFamC1F 659
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Nellums & Clemen [2022] FedCFamC1F 659
File number(s): BRC 11282 of 2014 Judgment of: CAMPTON J Date of judgment: 1 September 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING –
Application by the mother to discharge an order for the child to attend upon a Court Child Expert – Where final orders were made in December 2019 and not complied with – Where each of the father and the mother have since filed multiple interim applications – Where there is a high degree of conflict between the parties – Where the outstanding applications are all listed for final hearing – Where the evidence of a Child Court Expert will assist the Court in determining important issues in dispute – Application dismissed – Parties cautioned that orders are not guidelines or suggestions and are to be complied with.Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CC, 70NBA
Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.04
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 57 Date of last submission/s: 30 August 2022 Place: Sydney The Applicant: Litigant in Person The Respondent: Litigant in Person ORDERS
BRC 11282 of 2014 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS CLEMEN
Applicant
AND: MR NELLUMS
Respondent
order made by:
CAMPTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 SEPTEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother’s Application in a Proceeding filed on 25 August 2022 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 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 Nellums & Clemen has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CAMPTON
These are substantive proceedings as to the parenting of the child, X, born in 2011 (“X”). X is currently aged 11 years.
The applicant in the substantive proceedings is Ms Clemen (“the mother”) and the respondent Mr Nellums (“the father”).
X’s parents did not live together. They formed a relationship whilst both living in Country A between 2009 and 2010. The relationship ended before X was born.
Background
The father commenced proceedings as to X’s parenting in Country A in late 2011. X was eight months old at that time. Subsequent to a number of interlocutory determinations as to X's parenting being made between 2011 and 2013, and after a three-day mediation process, consent orders were made in Country A in mid-2013 permitting the mother to relocate X to Australia from early 2014.
The mother returned to Australia with the X in early 2014 and the father remained in Country A. The mother and X have lived in Brisbane since that date. The father currently lives in City D, Country B.
The Australian proceedings
On 16 December 2014 the mother filed in what was then the Federal Magistrates Court in Brisbane an Initiating Application in respect to what was expressed by her as child maintenance. That application was determined by way of a judgment delivered and orders made by Judge Demack on 1 July 2015.
The father filed an Initiating Application in respect to the parenting of X on 20 October 2015 in the Federal Circuit Court (as it was then known) seeking:
(a)Equal shared parental responsibility for X;
(b)That X live in Australia with the mother;
(c)That X spend time with the father each month and during school holidays, and be permitted to travel overseas with the father.
The mother's response sought:
(a)Sole parental responsibility for X;
(b)That X spend time with the father in Australia; and
(c)That the father be restrained from removing X from Australia.
Interim consent parenting orders were made 15 February 2015 and the proceedings adjourned for a discreet interim hearing in respect to schooling on 23 March 2016. These orders effectively finalised the interim proceedings and the substantive matter was adjourned for mention on 12 September 2016.
A family report issued 8 September 2016. On 15 December 2016 the proceedings was listed before Judge Denmack for final hearing for 1 day on 10 March 2017.
On 27 January 2017 Judge Denmack transferred the proceedings to the Family Court and vacated the final hearing on 10 March 2017 after becoming aware the mother had filed a Response seeking orders that X live in Country C with the mother. The Family Court at that time generally heard cases in respect to international relocation. A Senior Registrar made an order for an Independent Children's Lawyer and adjourned the proceedings to 30 May 2017.
Justice Bauman then made orders including an updated family report and as to the appointment of an expert to provide legal advice as to the laws of F State, Country C. He discharged the appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer. That matter was listed for final hearing on 18 to 21 September 2018. On 24 April 2018 orders were made appointing Mr E as the expert to prepare a report as to the relevant laws of F State, Country C.
Until shortly before the conclusion of the proceedings before Bauman J, the mother sought to relocate X to live with her in Country C. The father during the course of the proceedings resided in Country A. It was the mother’s case before Bauman J that there had been a history of family violence during her relationship with the father. Each party alleged that other had engaged in verbally abusive and harassing communications. The mother contended that the father had little interest in X, had lengthy absences from X’s life and that his conduct had an adverse impact on X’s development. She further contended that the father's parenting skills were deficient and that he had little emotional atonement and availability for X. She contended that X presented as being withdrawn after visits with the father and exhibited rather concerning behavioural characteristics. The mother gave evidence that X was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyper Activity Disorder (“ADHD”) and anxiety, and that X’s symptomologies heightened after visits with his father.
On 25 May 2018, Bauman J vacated the final hearing dates in September 2018 after being advised that the parents had come to an agreement to resolve and compromise the proceedings by 27 June. The order for the preparation of the family report was discharged. The compromise did not eventuate. The mother re-listed the matter pressing her relief to relocate X to Country C.
The final orders
Justice Bauman made final parenting orders, some of which were by way of consent, were made on 22 January and 1 March 2019, being:
(a)The mother have sole parental responsibility in respect of X’s education and health and the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for all other long term issues.
(b)By consent X live with the mother in Australia and the father who lives overseas, to spend time with X in Australia.
(c)By consent, the X’s name be placed on the airport watch list.
On 21 August 2019 the mother filed an Application for final orders in the Federal Circuit (as it was then known) seeking orders to have X's name removed from the watch list and to travel to Country G and New Zealand.
Orders were made by Judge Howard on 4 December 2019 discharging orders in respect of X's name on the airport watch list and any other orders restraining X from leaving Australia, and dispensed with personal service on the Respondent of all the documents/affidavits filed by the mother from 21 August to 19 November 2019.
The Contravention Applications
The father asserted that the mother has frustrated his capacity to spend time with X, and has engaged with the Court to exclude him from X’s life.
It is the father’s case in this tranche of proceedings that within a month of the final orders, the mother without reasonable excuse contravened those orders by not making X available to spend time with him. He filed a Contravention Application in the Federal Circuit Court (as it was then) on 6 December 2019.
The contravention proceedings in that forum were characterised by each of the parents filing a plethora of interim applications seeking a broad range of relief. There were a number orders made by different judges, including interim parenting orders made by Judge Middleton on 25 June 2021 as recorded later in these reasons. The issue as to the practicality of the parenting arrangements for X compounded in circumstances where:
(a)At some time in 2021 the father commenced to live in Country B;
(b)The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic required the father to quarantine when he arrived in and left Australia; and
(c)The erosion of the parental relationship between X and his father;
(d)The preference of each of the parents not to communicate directly with each other but rather through a Court process.
The difficulties faced by the parents in facilitating time between X and the father has been aggravated by their use of the Court processes and these parenting proceedings as a method through which to achieve an advantage in their siege against the other.
An example of this kind of conduct was recorded in the Child Inclusive Conference memorandum of the Court Child Expert dated 17 June 2021. That memorandum recorded that after an order was made on 7 June 2021 requiring the mother, father and X to attend interviews with the Court Child Expert, the mother sent a chain of correspondence to the Court Child Expert advising that she would not bring X to the appointment in compliance with the order. The mother attended those interviews but did not bring X with her.
During her interview with the Court Child Expert, the mother produced a letter from a psychologist that “she said justifies her decision to not bring [X] to the interviews”. The Court Child Expert observed that the letter contained no reference to anything X had said about attending the interviews, that he had only attended upon the psychologist who provided the letter once, and that the single appointment was in the company of the mother and her partner.
The memorandum records the mother further advising the Court Child Expert that she “[didn’t] think [X] would have talked to [her]. He’s too anxious and traumatised”, and that she considered her conduct to be justified because the Court has “sufficient evidence that it is in [X’s] best interests not to spend time with the father”.
An order was made in the Federal Circuit Court on 17 June 2021 requiring the mother to bring the X to a further appointment with the Court Child Expert. The mother complied with that order and X attended upon the Court Child Expert on 25 June 2021. Each of the parents and X were interviewed separately. On that same day, the Court Child Expert released a further memorandum and the proceedings were listed for hearing before a judge of the Federal Circuit Court.
It was uncontroversial by this time that X did not have a strong relationship with the father and that the reason for that circumstance was in dispute. X could not remember much about his father in his interview with the Court Child Expert. He told the expert that he “did not know the reason he did not spend time with his father”, and that did not want to see his father on the day of the interviews but was not sure how he would feel about seeing him in the future.
A substantial issue for the purposes of these proceedings as opined by the Court Child Expert was the impact on X’s emotional development and mental health, specifically his sense of self, his sense of self-esteem and self-identity, and his emotional security should he resume spending time with his father or if such time did not occur in the future. It was her impression that X did not appear anxious about the prospect of spending time with the father. She recorded that the mother said she was “not opposed to this”. The Court Child Expert foreshadowed future difficulties if arrangements for time and communication are made but not implemented and implemented consistently.
During the course of the hearing on 25 June 2021, the father sought adherence to the final orders and the mother sought to suspend the father’s time and communication with X. It was the mother’s submission on that date that, subject to the outcome of the continuing litigation in Country A, that the father ought to provide evidence of he being available to spend consistent time with X.
The final orders
The judge made orders on a defended basis on 25 June 2021 in the following terms:
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
1.That the child [X] born in 2011 (“the child”) shall spend time and communicate with the father as can be agreed between the parties, but failing agreement as follows:
(a)Commencing 26 June 2021, by electronic video calls via WhatsApp each day at 6.00pm for the next six (6) days;
(b)On either 3 July 2021 or 4 July 2021, supervised for a period of up to two (2) hours at [J Consultancy, Suburb K] should [J Consultancy] be available to accommodate such supervised time, or if [J Consultancy] are unable to accommodate such supervised time, on a weekday during the child’s school holidays that [J Consultancy] are able to accommodate;
(c) On 7 July 2021, by electronic video call via WhatsApp at 6.00pm;
(d) On 9 July 2021, by electronic video call via WhatsApp at 6.00pm;
(e)On either 10 July 2021 or 11 July 2021, supervised for a period of up to two (2) hours at [J Consultancy, Suburb K] should [J Consultancy] be available to accommodate such supervised time, or if [J Consultancy] are unable to accommodate such supervised time, on a weekday during the child’s school holidays that [J Consultancy] are able to accommodate;
(f)Upon the father returning to [Country B], by electronic video call via WhatsApp each Wednesday and Sunday at 6.00pm.
2.That in relation to the child’s electronic video calls with the father pursuant to the above Order, the father shall initiate the call and in relation to the electronic video calls the mother shall:
(a) Ensure that the child is available to receive the call;
(b)Arrange for the child to call the father on the following night if, for any unforeseen circumstance, the child misses the call from father; and
(c) Ensure that the child has privacy during the conversation.
3.That the parties shall keep each other informed at all times of their contact telephone numbers and keep each other informed of any change within 24 hours.
4.That within five (5) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall register with [J Consultancy, Suburb K] and complete an intake interview (if necessary) and attend to all other requirements of the [J Consultancy] to facilitate supervised time between the child and the father.
THE COURT ORDERS:
5.That this matter be adjourned for Mention at 9.30am on 30 November 2021 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.
IT IS NOTED:
A.That pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 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 “Parenting Orders – obligations, consequences and who can help” and these particulars are included in these Orders.
The father contends that the mother again, absent reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the orders made 25 June 2021.
On 16 December 2021, these proceedings were transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).
On 4 February 2022 the mother filed an Initiating Application seeking in effect to dismiss the father’s Contravention Application filed 6 December 2019, discharging the orders as to X spending time and communication with his father pursuant to the final orders, and an order “prohibiting” the father from making further applications to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia absent leave.
The father filed a further Contravention Application on 25 February 2022. He filed a Response to the mother’s Initiating Application on 14 July 2022 seeking confirmation of the orders made on 1 March 2019 and recovery orders.
Among a plethora of other interlocutory applications, the polarised and entrenched high conflict between the parents generated a circumstance where it appears that X had not spent time with the father since January of 2019.
On 17 June 2022, in the mother’s absence, a senior judicial registrar of this Court determined the father’s Contravention Application filed 6 December 2019 and his Contravention Application filed 25 February 2022. A number of charges of contravention were not established. An order was made pursuant to s 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) varying the orders made on 1 March 2019 and 25 June 2021 in the following terms:
3.Pursuant to section 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Senior Judicial Registrar varies the Orders of 1 March 2019 and 25 June 2021:
a.[The father] spends time with the child on both 9 July 2022 and 23 July 2022 supervised for a period of up to 2 hours at [J Consultancy, Suburb K] at such times as [J Consultancy] is able to accommodate and the court requests [J Consultancy] to notify the parties of those times.
A further order was made requiring the mother to attend a post-separation parenting program and to produce evidence verifying her enrolment in such program on or before 22 July 2022. An order was made that the mother pay the father's costs of $1,800 within 28 days.
The mother’s review application
On 7 July 2022 the mother filed an Application for Review of the exercise of power by the senior judicial registrar. The orders of 17 June 2022 were stayed on 21 July 2022, pending the determination of the Application for Review.
That mother’s Application for Review was listed before me for hearing on 8 August 2022. On that day I made the following orders:
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 68 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) the parties are to note and comply with the overarching purpose as identified in s 67 of the Act and r 1.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
2.The following are listed for trial over 2 days on 29 and 30 September 2022 in the Brisbane Registry.
a.The Application for Review of the mother filed 7 July 2022 from the exercise of a delegated power of a Senior Judicial Registrar in making orders on 17 June 2022.
b.The Application-Contravention of the father filed 6 December 2019;
c.The Application-Contravention of the father filed 25 February 2022;
d.The Initiating Application of the mother to vary and discharge time with and communication with orders filed 4 February 2022;
e.The Response to Initiating Application of the father seeking confirmation of spend time with and communication with orders and other orders to facilitate the spending of time filed 14 July 2022;
f.In so far as in necessary the further amended Application in a Proceeding filed by the mother 11 April 2022.
3.The mother and father are directed to attend the Brisbane Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in person for each day of the above hearing and are directed to bring with them all documents they purpose to rely upon, tender into evidence or put to the other party in cross-examination during the course of the hearing.
4.The parties have been advised today that pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules the Application for Review will be an original hearing of the father’s applications-contravention.
5.The parties are requested to note the capacity of the Court to vary the parenting orders in respect of the child [X] born [in] 2011 as part of the contravention proceedings and that it is the intention of the Court in so far as it is possible to deal with all outstanding claims for parenting relief in the course of the above hearing.
6.The parties are not permitted to file any further affidavits for the purposes of the hearing without leave of the Court.
7.On the basis of what the Court has been advised today in circumstances where each of the parties appears without legal representation, the mandatory provisions of s 102NA of the Family Law Act do not apply in this matter and there appears insufficient evidentiary foundation to progress any discretionary s 102NA Order.
8.The Court notes that each of the parties have engaged in the hearing today and are on notice that in the event they fail or neglect to attend for the purposes of the trial scheduled to commence on 29 September 2022 in person in the Brisbane Registry, it is likely that the proceedings and the matter will be determined in their absence.
9.Each of the parties have confirmed they have received by way of email from the Court today the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum of Family [Mr L] dated 17 June 2021, the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum of Family [Ms M] dated 25 June 2021 and a transcript of the proceedings before Judge Coates in what was then the Federal Circuit Court on 25 June 2021.
10.The Enforcement Application of the mother filed 1 August 2022 seeking enforcement of a periodic child maintenance liability payable by the father as made in [Country A] on 23 July 2014 and registered with the Child Support Agency in Australia for collection on 10 March 2015 is listed for possible summary determination on 29 September 2022 pursuant to Rule 10.09 of the Family Law Rules. In this regard, the Court has provided notice to the mother as to the following matters in so far as they relate to that Application for Enforcement of a registered periodic child support liability:
(a)Section 30 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988;
(b)Section 113 A of the Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988;
(c)As to whether the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div1) has original jurisdiction so as to hear and determine an application pursuant to the Child Support (Registration and Collection) 1988 or whether such application ought be filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div2).
11.The mother advises the Court today that there are current proceedings in [Country A] as to enforcement of non-periodic child support liabilities payable by the father that are not capable of registration for collection with the Child Support Agency in Australia. That the value of the periodic child support arrears currently due to the Child Support Agency as at 8 November 2021 payable by the father was $19,848.42. The father has advised the Court in his material that he currently has an outstanding and yet to be determine Appeal in the Administrative Appeal Tribunal relating to child support. The mother puts this in issue and contends that all of the father’s appeal avenues in that forum have been exhausted.
12.The mother is to serve a sealed copy of these Orders upon the Registrar of Child Support on or before 2 September 2022 and for the purposes of proving such service is granted leave to file an affidavit as to that service, such affidavit to annex any Response from the Child Support Agency. That affidavit as to service and any response is to be filed and served on or before 23 September 2022.
13.Should she be so advised, the mother is granted leave to file and serve a Notice of Discontinuance of her Enforcement Application of a registered periodic child support liability filed 1 August 2022 without prejudice to her capacity to file such application of similar nature and character in an alternate forum.
14.Pending the hearing of this matter, each party is restrained from filing any further Application in a Proceeding or Initiating Application in this forum save and accept in the event they obtain leave to do so from the docket [Judicial Registrar].
15.The listing of this matter before [Judicial Registrar] on 13 December 2022 is vacated.
It was made clear to the parties at the listing before me on 8 August 2022, that the purpose of the listing before me on 29 and 30 September 2022 was to finally determine all of the outstanding parenting issues in dispute between the parties. That listing is to be conducted in person in Brisbane.
There has been no updated expert opinion provided to the parties or the Court since the Court Child Expert memorandum of 25 June 2021, being 14 months ago. In the circumstances of the absence of expert evidence as to relevant matters as to matters identified as relevant in the proceedings specified in s 60CC(2) of the Act, orders were made in chambers on 15 August 2022 in the following terms:
Specific Issues Family Report:
1.Pursuant to section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the parties and [X] born [in] 2011 are directed to attend with a Court Child Expert (practicing under their appointment as a family consultant) or a Family Consultant appointed under Regulation 7, nominated by the Court Children’s Service (referred to as the Family Consultant) for the purposes of the preparation of a Specific Issues Report.
2.The mother will do all things necessary to ensure the child attend upon the Family Consultant pursuant to section 62G(3A), unless otherwise determined by the Family Consultant that section 62G(3B) applies.
3.The mother shall deliver the child for the interview with the Family Consultant at the Brisbane Registry at 9am on 6 September 2022.
…
5.Pursuant to Order 1 herein, the Family Consultant shall provide a written report to the Court and the report shall deal with the following matters:
(a)The child’s views and nature of his relationship with his parents.
…
7.The mother is to do all things necessary to ensure that the child is presented to Court Child Services at the Brisbane Registry at 9 am on 6 September 2022.
8.In the event that the mother does not make the child available at Court Child Services, the Court Child Expert will advise my chambers of the same and the proceedings will be urgently relisted before me on short notice, by direct arrangement with my Associate.
The mother’s application to resist the specific issues report
With leave of a judicial registrar the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding on 25 August 2022 seeking the following:
1.Leave to file submissions on the child inclusive conference pursuant to the order made on 15 August 2022 in Chambers at Sydney.
In support of that Application in a Proceeding she relied upon:
(a)Her affidavit sworn 23 August 2022 and filed 25 August 2022
(b)Submissions filed 28 August 2022.
The father filed and relied upon:
(a)Written submissions on 30 August 2022; and
(b)A raft of affidavit material filed in this Court.
Having had the opportunity to read and consider the mother’s material relied upon for the purpose of this application, I understand that her relief sought by way of her Application in a Proceeding filed 25 August 2022 is that the order requiring her to facilitate X’s attendance on a Court Child Expert be discharged and that the Order for the preparation of the Specific Issues Report be discharged.
The mother contends that the “crux of this case” is the father's ability to enter Australia and that until he “files documentary proof that he has an Australian Visa”, the order for her to ensure that X attends upon a Court Child Expert ought be discharged. She contends that the father has been the subject of a criminal conviction in the Brisbane Magistrates Court and that he is required to attend for sentencing in that Court in late 2022.
The mother further advises that she is “unable to take any further time off work” and that her “job will be at risk if she does not attend work”. She complains as to the father's failure to pay child support.
Notwithstanding the above matters, it is her position that X’s “wishes need to be considered”. That said, she submits that “any further emotional distress and trauma by involving [X] in the proceedings” is unjustified and a waste of time. She contends that she and X have suffered “long terms stress, psychological abuse, financial hardship and health issues due to systems abuse”.
The father resists the mother’s relief sought in her Application in a Proceeding filed 25 August 2022. The gravamen of his complaint as contained in his submissions filed on 20 August 2022 was that the mother’s Application is merely another example of her misuse of Court processes to deny him from having a relationship with X. Although he does not specifically confirm that he will attend the interviews scheduled on 6 September 2022 with the Court Child Expert, he implies that will be the case by observing his attendance in person at various court events over the course of these ongoing proceedings.
I am not persuaded that any of the evidence filed by the mother or her submissions ground an exercise of discretion so as to cause the orders made 15 August 2022 to be discharged or varied.
To my mind, the Court Child Expert may play a significant role in assisting the Court in making a determination that ensures that X’s best interests are met having regard to the objects and principles set out at s 60B of the Act.
Section 60CC3(a) and (b) of the Act, which set out mandatory considerations to which I must turn my mind in the making of any final order as to X’s parenting, will assume importance in this matter. At present, the best evidence I have as to these issues is found in the polarised, disparate evidence of each parents acting as a conduit for X’s voice, and the outdated evidence of the Court Child Expert from June 2021. It is appropriate that X be afforded an opportunity to express his own voice through an independent and objective expert.
If the mother's prophecy is accurate, the father will not attend in person for the purposes of either the appointments with the Court Child Expert currently scheduled for 9.00 am on 6 September 2022, or in person at the trial scheduled in the Brisbane Registry. In such circumstance, as was foreshadowed to the parties at the hearing before me on 8 August 2022, it may be that the outstanding applications and cross applications as to orders regulating the parenting of X will be determined in the father’s absence.
These parties have consumed an expediential and disproportionate share of the Commonwealth’s resources by way of delegated judicial officers, counsellors and other stakeholders over the past eight years. They have also engaged in litigation during that period in Country A. That disproportionate application of Court resources at the expense of other litigants requiring the Court’s assistance is inconsistent with the mandatory obligations pursuant to r 1.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). As was reinforced by Order 1 made on 8 August 2022, the parties are required to conduct proceedings in a manner consistent with the overarching purpose of the just resolution of disputes according to law as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.
To my mind it is imperative, for the benefit of these parties, for X, and so as to mitigate the ongoing disproportionate use of Court resources, that these proceedings come to a resolution. I am satisfied that the engagement of the Court Child Expert will assist in that project.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the mother's Application in a Proceeding filed 25 August 2022 is dismissed.
So that it is clear to the mother, the order made requiring her to deliver X to the Court Registry is simply that. It is not a suggestion or a guideline. Litigants ought to be aware that any flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court exposes them to punishment for such contempt.
In the event the mother fails to make X available at the Court Child Services at the Brisbane Registry at 9.00 am on 6 September 2022, it may well be that orders may be necessary on short notice to facilitate the recovery of X and his presentation for the purposes of the Court Child Expert interview.
I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton. Associate:
Dated: 1 September 2022
0
0
0