Olivier and Olivier (No. 3)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OLIVIER & OLIVIER (NO. 3) [2018] FamCA 1001

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim proceedings – application of Rice v Asplund – where contended that Court did not have all relevant material before it at previous instance – alleged deficiencies in Family Report – discussion of decision-making on an interim basis – application dismissed.   

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461
Rice v Asplund [1978] FamCA 84

APPLICANT: Mr Olivier

RESPONDENT: Ms Olivier

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms L McGregor

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1245 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 26 November 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 23 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Self-representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid, ACT

Orders

1. The Father's Application in a Case filed 18 June 2018 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Olivier & Olivier (No. 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1245 of 2017

Mr Olivier

Applicant

And

Ms Olivier

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter concerns an interim determination of proceedings between the applicant, Mr Olivier and the respondent, Ms Olivier concerning their three children E, eleven years old, F, seven years old and G, who is four years old.  The current application made by the Father follows a previous interim determination of the living arrangements for the children. 

2. The orders sought by the parties are extracted at Annexure 1.  Essentially the Father seeks a change in orders that provide that if the parties no longer share a house that the children will live primarily with the Mother.  The Mother seeks the dismissal of the Father’s application.

3. The Father relied upon the following:

   a)Application in a Case filed 18 June 2018;

   b)Affidavit of Mr Olivier filed 18 June 2018; and

   c)Affidavit of Mr Olivier filed 16 November 2018.

4. The Mother relied upon the following:

   d)Response to an Application in a Case filed 8 August 2018; and

   e)Affidavit of Ms Olivier filed 8 August 2018.

5. It is necessary to set out the litigation history.

6. The parties’ first appearance in Court was on 1 August 2017.  This resulted in an arrangement whereby the Father had the children live with him four nights per week, the Mother three nights per week.

7. On…