Ortona and Peters

[2018] FamCA 389

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ORTONA & PETERS [2018] FamCA 389

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Airport watch order – application to discharge order where father has orders that the children live with him and mother’s time not significant – order made when mother fails to file material or attend.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Ortona

RESPONDENT: Ms Peters

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8590 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 9 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 9 May 2018

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That paragraph 2 of the orders made on 21 October 2015 by the Honourable Justice Benjamin is discharged.

IT IS REQUESTED

1. That the Australian Federal Police remove the names of the children B born … 2003 and C born … 2005 from the Airport Watch List from this moment onwards.

2. That the court advise the Australian Federal Police and all relevant authorities that the Airport Watch orders in respect of the children B born … 2003 and C born … 2005 are now discharged.

3. That a copy of these orders be served electronically upon the mother.

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 Ortona & Peters 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 859  of 2012

Mr Ortona

Applicant

And

Ms Peters

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed by Mr Ortona on 22 March 2018 in which he seeks final orders, the essence of which are to remove two children, B, who is now aged 14, and C, who is aged 13 from an airport watch order.

2. For reasons that do not now matter, this case has an extraordinarily long history in this Court.  There is no better evidence of that than the fact that the file itself is in a number of boxes and the document that I have in front of me is number 179.  The essence of the proceeding is a parenting dispute, and the Court previously removed the children from their mother and placed them with their father.

3. The application today is simply to alter an order made by Benjamin J in 2015 at a time when there were contested proceedings between the parties.  His Honour placed both of the children on the airport watchlist and, perhaps unusually in the current environment, directed the Australian Federal Police and the relevant government department not to remove them until each of the children turned 18 years of age.  It is certainly the Court’s current policy with the Australian Federal Police that these sorts of orders only be for two years unless there are good reasons otherwise.

4. It is not necessary for me to reconsider why Benjamin J so ordered, but this application relates to a pending trip for one of the children.  At the moment, Ms Peters is not having any contact of a physical nature, and there are a few telephone calls.

5. When the application was made, Mr Ortona not only served it electronically, but he also had it sent by post.  It is important to put into the record Ms Peters’s response.  She says she objects to the children’s removal from the airport watchlist.  She says that she will be nominating her child to be taken off the watchlist only for the purpose of the “supposed school trip”.  She said that the other child can remain on the list until a further application is made.  She then says this:

   I will be arranging for a nominated solicitor to hold the children’s passports any other time when not in use.  You have failed to provide details as to whether dual applications are to be made for the European passports and other particulars.  Please provide such details as a matter of urgency.

   And the email goes on.

6. At the Court on 13 April before Registrar Field, there was no appearance by or on behalf of Ms Peters.  Having acknowledged receipt of the application and, more importantly, its contents, and being an experienced litigator, one wonders why Ms Peters has not filed any material.  She has been called today and not attended.

7. Having regard to the nature of the evidence set out in the affidavit filed on 22 March 2018 and, indeed, the cryptic message from Ms Peters, I see no reason why the application should not proceed on an undefended basis, as was anticipated by the Registrar in April.

8. The affidavit material to which I have already referred also indicates what is proposed for these children, and all of the indications are that Mr Ortona is caring for them properly, and the role of their mother is relatively insignificant.

9. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of these children that the orders be made and, accordingly, that the airport watch orders be discharged.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 9 May 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  29 May 2018