Pachis & Turnbull

Case [2024] FedCFamC1F 420

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Pachis & Turnbull [2024] FedCFamC1F 420

File number(s): BRC 15185 of 2022
Judgment of: BAUMANN J
Date of judgment: 26 June 2024 
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where final parenting Orders were made in September 2022 for the children to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Where the father recommenced proceedings in December 2022 after the mother withheld the children – Further final parenting Orders were made in February 2023 for the children to have no contact with the mother – Where the mother instituted further proceedings in September 2023 – Where the Court is satisfied there has been no significant change in circumstances since the final parenting Orders were made in February 2023 – Application dismissed  
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65DAAA
Cases cited:

KKW v Queensland Police Service [2004] QDC 43

Pachis & Turnbull [2022] FedCFamC2F 1290

Pachis & Turnbull [2023] FedCFamC2F 253

Pachis & Turnbull [2023] FedCFamC1A 110

Pachis & Turnbull (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 16

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 31
Date of hearing: 14 June 2024
Place: Brisbane
Solicitor for the Applicant: Litigant in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Litigant in person

ORDERS

BRC 15185 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS PACHIS

Applicant
AND:

MR TURNBULL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:

1.That the Initiating Application filed 23 September 2023 be dismissed.

2.That the Application in a Proceeding filed 27 September 2023 be dismissed.

3.That the Application in a Proceeding filed 23 November 2023 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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 Pachis & Turnbull has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BAUMANN J:

  1. There is hardly a more distressing event in a parent’s life then to lose the opportunity for a continuing relationship with their children.  When that occurs by reason of Court orders, it is not surprising that many parents seek to blame not only the other parent but the Court – often maintaining and initiating further applications to remedy what the distressed parent regards as a gross injustice.

Continue reading Pachis & Turnbull

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pachis & Turnbull [2024] FedCFamC1F 420
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1F 420
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved a dispute over the parenting arrangements for children between Ms. Pachis and Mr. Turnbull. Final parenting orders had been made in February 2023, directing that the children live with the father and have no contact with the mother. Ms. Pachis initiated further proceedings in September 2023, seeking to have the orders varied. The central legal issues the Court needed to decide were whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the final parenting orders were made and, if not, whether varying the orders would be in the best interests of the children.

The Court examined the evidence presented, including the mother's attempts to assert allegations against the father and others, which had been previously dismissed as unfounded. The mother also presented school records showing the children's good behaviour and academic performance. However, the Court found that these records did not establish a significant change in circumstances. The Court also noted the mother's history of making vexatious claims and the potential detriment to the children if they were exposed to these allegations. Baumann J concluded that there had been no significant change in circumstances and that varying the parenting orders would likely be detrimental to the children.

Baumann J dismissed the mother's application and found no basis for varying the existing parenting orders. The Court further declined to make an order restraining the mother from commencing new proceedings without leave, due to the absence of a formal application and the need to ensure procedural fairness. The Court's final orders included dismissing the mother's initiating application and two subsequent applications in the proceeding. These orders were made on a final basis, subject to any minor corrections or variations as permitted by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 15185 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS PACHIS

Applicant

AND:

MR TURNBULL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:

1. That the Initiating Application filed 23 September 2023 be dismissed.

2. That the Application in a Proceeding filed 27 September 2023 be dismissed.

3. That the Application in a Proceeding filed 23 November 2023 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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

As distressing as it must be for the father to continue to be dragged back to Court to defend himself and his wife, his affidavit filed 3 May 2024 seeks to do so. In an attempt to corroborate his position that no material change in circumstances has occurred since Judge Vasta’s decision of 28 February 2023, the father:(a)annexed a decision of District Court Judge Porter KC delivered early 2024 (KKW v Queensland Police Service [2024] QDC 43), where Judge Porter dismissed an appeal by the mother against a decision by a State Magistrate granting the father a Protection Order and dismissing the mother’s cross application. The Reasons for Judgment referred to the mother’s “allegations against everyone involved in this matter” as “a fantasy” at [17]. In the final paragraphs of the Judgment, Judge Porter KC refers to the mother’s actions having “reached the stage of the most egregious abuse of Court processes” (at [19]) and the appeal being “vexatious” and that “[i]t had no prospects of success. It involved repetition and exaggeration of scurrilous allegations” (at [21]); and(b)produced school records for the children for semester two 2023, with teachers noting excellent behaviour and academic results.CONCLUSION I am satisfied that nothing I say in these Reasons will satisfy the mother. I expect, not only that she will appeal my decision, but there is every likelihood I will now be accused of personal or judicial conduct of a similar nature that has been asserted about other judicial officers. That the mother sought to rely upon the well-publicised decision of a single Federal Court Judge relating to Judge Vasta, is an example of the depths she is prepared to go to assert everyone, but herself, has a responsibility for the sad situation where she has not spent any time or communicated with her children. That she continued to assert before Judge Porter KC in early 2024 what appears to be largely similar allegations to those dealt with by Austin J on 10 January 2024, despite Austin J’s clear admonishment (see in particular [14] and [18]), speaks volumes. I am satisfied there has been no significant change in circumstances since the final parenting Orders were made by Judge Vasta. I further find the children are likely to suffer potential detriment, if the final parenting Order was reconsidered on the evidence before me (although untested) because they would be likely to be exposed to the mother’s unfiltered allegations against, particularly, the father. Furthermore, nothing relied upon by the mother establishes any likelihood, at this time, of different parenting orders being made. For these reasons, the mother’s Application filed 23 September 2023 shall be dismissed. I discussed with the father a matter he alluded to seeking by his affidavit (with no Response or cross Application filed by him) – namely an order that the mother be restrained from commencing new proceedings without leave of the Court. In the absence of any such application, including that the mother was entitled to be offered procedural fairness before such an order was made, I felt it was not appropriate to launch into an oral application or even as may be available under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law Rules) 2021 (Cth), initiate such an application by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.