Pecora and Adamsen and Ors

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PECORA & ADAMSEN & ORS [2018] FCCA 3316

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting and property proceedings – proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – order made.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.39

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.8.02

Cases cited:

Morris & Rosetti [2017] FamCA 249

Applicant: MR PECORA

First Respondent: MS ADAMSEN

Second Respondent: MR A PECORA

Third Respondent: MS B PECORA

File Number: PAC 456 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 3 December 2018

Date of Last Submission: 3 December 2018

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 4 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr Bainbridge of Bainbridge Legal

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Mr Williamson of Reimer Winter Williamson The Lawyers

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents

Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Blake of Blumberg Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. These proceedings are forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia, and are listed for first return on 18 December 2018 at 9:30am.

NOTATION

The Court refers to Reasons for Decision in relation to the above Order.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Pecora & Adamsen & Ors is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 456 of 2016

MR PECORA

Applicant

And

MS ADAMSEN

First Respondent

MR A PECORA

Second Respondent

MS B PECORA

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The within Reasons for Judgment relate to this Court’s Order of 16 November 2018 that these parenting and property proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia.

2. The wife is aged 34 years, and has worked as a [occupation omitted].  The husband is aged 42 years, and his occupation is [occupation omitted].

3. Their relationship spanned at least some six years, and they have two children, aged six and four.  There was a period when they lived separately and apart under the one roof.

4. The husband contends that the wife has serious mental health issues, including schizophrenia.  The wife disputes that contention, asserting that she has suffered, in the past, brief psychotic episodes with anxiety for which treatment was received.  The wife has adduced psychiatric evidence.

5. The parties hail from [country omitted], and the wife will require a [language omitted] interpreter for the final hearing.  It also appears that one or both of the paternal grandparents, who have been joined to these proceedings as further Respondents, will require a [language omitted] interpreter for the final hearing.

6. The parties’ parenting proceedings have dominated the Court’s time until recently when the parties’ property proceedings significantly escalated.  Today the Court has given leave to the wife to join the husband’s parents as Respondents in the property proceedings; inter alia, the wife contended that joinder of the husband’s parents was necessary to recover matrimonial assets (allegedly in the form of past cash monies received by them from the husband) from them, and further, to…