Nuru and Keita

[2013] FamCA 950

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NURU & KEITA [2013] FamCA 950

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where both parties require interpreters for trial – Where it is requested that Legal Aid Queensland consider extending further funding to both parties for trial

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
APPLICANT:	Mr Nuru

RESPONDENT: Ms Keita

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Couper

FILE NUMBER: BRC 11668 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 2 December 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 2 December 2013

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Couper Geysen Family & Animal Law

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The final hearing of the matter be set down for 3 days commencing at 10.00am on 26 May 2014 in the Brisbane Registry of the Family Court of Australia.

2. The hearing fee be paid by 4.00pm 28 days prior to the commencement of the final hearing unless a reduction of the fee is obtained beforehand.

AND IT IS NOTED THAT it is requested that Legal Aid Queensland do favourably consider extending legal aid funding to support each party in this matter.

AND IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT the parties certify that (a) the matter is in all respects ready for final hearing; (b) it will require the number of days allocated; and (c) settlement discussions have taken place and been unproductive but in the event that consent is reached prior to the final hearing, the Court will be notified at the earliest possible time.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nuru & Keita has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 11668 of 2010

Mr Nuru

Applicant

and

Ms Keita

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are parenting proceedings pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act (“the Act”) concerning four children aged 12, 10, 7 and 5. Their parents are African refugees and each of them, require two different language interpreters. The interests of the children are separately represented by an Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed for that purpose pursuant to the Act.

2. The Mother’s contention in the primary proceedings is that the children should continue to live with her and spend no physical or face to face time with the Father on the basis of allegations she has made concerning serious family violence by the Father to herself and the two eldest children.

3. For his part, the Applicant Father is seeking equal parental responsibility and time with the children on alternate weekends and holidays. The Father has not seen the children for about four years.

4. I have, today, set the matter down for a trial for three days commencing on 26 May 2014. It is readily apparent from what has transpired today at what would ordinarily be a simple Court event, namely, a call over to set a matter down for trial, that these parties have particular difficulties in circumstances of their language difficulty. The prospect that they are able to conduct for themselves a trial of the issues involved here on a fair and proper basis seems to me to be a remote one given their language difficulties, even with the assistance of interpreters.

5. On that basis, and as the Independent Children’s Lawyer contends, consideration ought be given by Legal Aid Queensland to provide legal aid funding to these parties, particularly in the interests of the four children concerned in these proceedings. I therefore request that Legal Aid Queensland give further careful consideration to legal aid funding for these parents, so that the proceedings concerning these four relatively young children do not miscarry in the trial to occur in May 2014.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 2 December 2013.

Associate:

Date: 4 December 2013