Perron and Bird

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERRON & BIRD [2014] FCCA 1315

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Overseas child maintenance order – application for a stay of collection.

Legislation:

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, ss.18A, 111C
Family Law Regulations, r.36

Badgery & Child Support Registrar & Anor [2013] FCCA 1727
Vaters & Kantner [2011] FMCAfam 303

Applicant: MR PERRON

Respondent: MS BIRD

File Number: NCC 1237 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Terry

Hearing date: 18 June 2014

Date of Last Submission: 18 June 2014

Delivered at: Newcastle

Delivered on: 25 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Wallace

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ramsland Laidler

Solicitor Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Bithrey

Solicitors for the Respondent: Catherine Henry Partners

ORDERS

1. The father’s application filed on 16 May 2014 is dismissed.

2. The matter is adjourned to 4.00pm on 26 June 2014 for further consideration of the mother’s application for costs.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 1237 of 2014

MR PERRON

Applicant

And

MS BIRD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Mr Perron & Ms Bird married in (omitted) 2001. They have two children, X born on (omitted) 2003 and Y born on (omitted) 2005.

2. The mother was born in the United States. The parties married in the United States and lived there after their marriage and the children were born in the United States.

3. In September 2006 the parties moved to Australia. They subsequently separated and in April 2009 the mother returned to the United States with the children. Since then the mother and the children have lived continuously in the United States and the father has lived continuously in Australia.

4. On 28 September 2011 parenting and child support orders were made by consent in the 19^th Judicial Circuit Court, (omitted) County. The orders provided for the mother to have custody of the children and for the father to pay child support of $1,000.00[USD] per month.

5. The father said that he paid this amount regularly. The mother alleged that he missed many payments. For the purposes of this decision nothing turns on which version of events is correct.

6. In 2013 the mother filed an application in the Circuit Court in (omitted) seeking reconsideration of the amount of child support.

7. The father was served with the mother’s documents by a process server on 15 August 2013.

8. On 21 August 2013 the father sent the mother an email confirming that he had received the documents. He went on to say that her financial demands were unrealistic, that he would no longer be paying her any money and that he would “sign the children over to her.”[1]

   [1] Annexure B to the mother’s affidavit filed 12 June 2014. There was no cross-examination at the hearing on 18 June 2014 but I would have expected the father to indicate it if he…