Noseki and Noseka

[2012] FamCA 480

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NOSEKI & NOSEKA [2012] FamCA 480

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – ex parte orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Noseki

RESPONDENT: Ms Noseka

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3527 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 20 June 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 20 June 2012

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: York Family Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: no appearance

Orders

1. The father, Mr Noseki be permitted to remove the child, L (born …/08/2000) from Australia for holidays and the Watch List Order (order 13 dated 9 October 2007) presently in force be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to this Order.

2. The Australian Federal Police forthwith remove the child, L from the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. It is requested that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this Order forthwith.

4. The father be permitted to take the child overseas, departing Australia on 20 June 2012 and returning on 17 July 2012.

5. These orders are made in circumstances where an application was brought urgently by the father and efforts to contact the mother were unsuccessful.

6. The father provide a copy of the application, affidavit and these orders to the mother by leaving them in an envelope addressed to the mother at the C Contact Centre on the next scheduled occasion L is to see her mother at that centre.

7. Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Noseki & Noseka has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3527 of 2012

Mr Noseki

Applicant

And

Ms Noseka

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The father has made an application that he be permitted to remove L (“the child”) born in August 2000 from Australia and the watch list order that is presently in force be suspended to enable him to do so. He wants to go to the United Kingdom for a period in excess of three weeks.

2. There are currently in place orders that would stop him from doing that. Those orders were made on 9 October 2007. In particular, order 13 is a watch list order and order 14 allows a three week holiday overseas subject to the father providing to the mother at least four weeks notice of any proposed travel.

3. The father comes to the court a day or two before he is due to leave, he is in fact due to leave today, saying that in October 2011 he booked tickets for himself, his wife Ms M, the child, Ms M’s son J and their daughter B to travel overseas today through to 17 July 2012. The trip has been paid for by Ms M’s parents. It is said that her father has had cancer and had arranged the trip for his family and that there are 15 members of the family going on the trip, including Ms M’s parents and their children and partners. There are seven grandchildren including the child.

4. I have been informed that the father simply overlooked or forgot the requirements of the orders of October 2007. Order 18 made in October 2007 was that each party keep the other party informed of their residential address and telephone contact numbers. The father says he does not know the mother’s current address.

5. Had the father behaved in a organised and proper way, it would have been a fairly simple thing to provide the mother with notice of his intention to travel overseas. The mother has been seeing the child at C Contact Centre since 2007 on a regular monthly basis. He wishes to extend the time from three weeks to four weeks but in a way that does not interfere with the mother’s time with the child.

6. On 19 June 2012 I contacted the child contact centre and spoke to an employee of that centre who provided us with contact details in relation to the mother and the mother’s solicitor. We tried to make contact while in court at both those numbers but were unsuccessful and I accept the father’s lawyer has attempted on three occasions to contact the mother. She was unable to leave a message on her telephone answering machine because of lack of space. The mother’s alleged lawyer has not otherwise been able to be contacted by the father’s lawyer.

7. I am told that the mother has certain mental status difficulties and it was for that reason I was very keen not to alter the orders unless every effort had been made to try and involve the mother in the proceedings.

8. I am faced with a very unfortunate circumstance, however, I will make the orders as sought as I believe they are in the child’s best interests.

9. The father in the future should not lightly assume that the court will extend any further indulgence and I expect the orders to be complied with in the future.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 20 June 2012. 

Associate: 

Date: 26.6.2012