FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Poletti & Vella [2025] FedCFamC2F 796
File number(s): MLC 2686 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE Date of judgment: 22 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – spend time arrangements – where the father seeks order that the children spend supervised time with him - where the children have not seen the father for five years – where one of the children has never met the father – unacceptable risk – allegations of family violence – whether there is a benefit to the children of being able to have a relationship with both parents – consideration of what arrangements will promote the safety of the children – whether supervision of the children’s time with the father will ameliorate identified risks – consideration of mother’s capacity to provide for the children’s needs if there is an order for supervised time with the father – where order for supervised time will expose the children and the mother to unacceptable risk – allocation of decision-making about major long-term issues – HELD that the father spend no time and have no communication with the children, and that the mother have sole decision-making for all major long-term issues relating to the children. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CG(1), 61B, 61C(1), 61C(3), 61D, 61D(1), 61D(2), 61D(3).
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 140(1), 140(2).
Cases cited: Adamson & Adamson (2014) FLC 93-622
Carlson & Fluyium [2012] FamCA 32
Fitzwater v Fitzwater (2019) 60 Fam LR 212
Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97
Kilpatrick & Kilpatrick [2017] FamCA 432
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 90 Date of hearing: 12 - 13 May 2025 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Peters Solicitor for the Applicant: Randles, Cooper & Co Pty Ltd Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Leeton Solicitor for the Respondent: Cathleen Corridon & Associates Family Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms McNamee Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Creative Family Law Solutions ORDERS
MLC 2686 of 2023 BETWEEN: MR POLETTI
Applicant
AND: MS VELLA
Respondent
AND: INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother have sole decision-making responsibility for all major long-term issues for the children X born in 2009, Y born in 2019 and Z born in 2021 (collectively, ‘the children’).
2.The children live with the mother.
3.The children spend no time with the father.
4.The mother be authorised to provide a copy of these Orders to:
(a)any school the children may attend upon;
(b)any allied medical or health professional that the children attend upon;
(c)Victoria Police; and
(d)the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.
5.The Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
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…
Continue reading Poletti & Vella
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Poletti & Vella [2025] FedCFamC2F 796
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2F 796
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court noted that the children had not seen their father for five years and one of the children had never met him. The court considered that this significant absence would make it difficult for the children to establish a relationship with their father. The court was also concerned about the allegations of family violence in the relationship between the parents. The court found that the risk to the children was unacceptable if they were to spend time with their father. The court considered that the supervision of the children's time with their father would not ameliorate the identified risks. The court also considered that the mother was well-equipped to provide for the children's needs if there was an order for supervised time with the father. However, the court found that an order for supervised time with the father would expose the children and the mother to unacceptable risk. The court also considered that it was in the best interests of the children to have sole decision-making responsibility allocated to the mother.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC 2686 of 2023
BETWEEN:
MR POLETTI
Applicant
AND:
MS VELLA
Respondent
AND:
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The mother have sole decision-making responsibility for all major long-term issues for the children X born in 2009, Y born in 2019 and Z born in 2021 (collectively, ‘the children’).
2. The children live with the mother.
3. The children spend no time with the father.
4. The mother be authorised to provide a copy of these Orders to:
(a) any school the children may attend upon;
(b) any allied medical or health professional that the children attend upon;
(c) Victoria Police; and
(d) the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.
5. The Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.