FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| POLLARD & NORDBERG | [2019] FamCA 365 |
| FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – three children – two born to the couple – the eldest having a different biological father. FAMILY LAW – RECOVERY ORDER – mother removes three children from Victoria to New South Wales – no knowledge or agreement to do so from father – mother’s family and network at place where she now lives with the children – father obtains recovery order from local Magistrates Court in Victoria. FAMILY LAW – FAMILY VIOLENCE – detailed assertions by mother – disputed by father – little evidence given by father beyond denials – mutual intervention orders – mother contending that the fact, nature and extent of family violence drove her to depart Victoria seeking refuge with her family – no evidence from a family consultant or 11F report. FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING APPLICATION – proper approach to adopt when dealing with contested evidence, especially in respect of family violence. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL UNDER s 96(4) – hearing de novo – extensive review of authorities – conclusion that appeal should be allowed. FAMILY LAW – INTERIM RELOCATION ORDER – desirability or otherwise of making such an order when the evidence is incomplete – need for better evidence about the best interests of the children – further hearing of that application adjourned to Federal Circuit Court. FAMILY LAW – TRANSFER OF PROCEEDING – from local Magistrates Court to Federal Circuit Court of Australia – subsequent to transfer Magistrates Court purportedly issuing recovery warrant directed to Australian Federal Police – nullity– recovery order made 16 April 2019 set aside. |
| Family Law Act 1975, pt 7, ss 4AB, 29, 37A, 60B, 60CC, 61, 67, 94, 96, Family Law Amendment Act 1983 No 72 of 1983, s 15 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution) 1900, ch 3, ss 71, 77, 79 |
| Aldridge v Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 106 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Attorney General v Sillem [1864] 10 HL Cas 704 Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36 Browne v Keith (2015) 55 Fam LR 208 C v S [1998] FamCA 66 CLR 681 Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) (1986) 160 CLR 220 Commonwealth of Australia v Bank of New South Wales [1950] AC 235 Deiter v Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82, Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 Goode & Goode (2006) 36 Fam LR 422 Grierson v R (1938) 60 CLR 431 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 Hutchinson v Hutchinson (1978) 4 Fam LR 446 In the Marriage of Grabar (1976) 2 Fam LR 11,581 In the Marriage of Nowland (1977) 3 Fam LR 11,262 In the Marriage of Robinson and Willis (1981) 8 Fam LR 131 In the Marriage of Sanders (1976) 1 Fam LR 11,433 In the Marriage of Scott (1994) 17 Fam LR 420 In the Marriage of Sutton (No 2) (1976) 2 Fam LR 11,256 In the Marriage of Watts (1976)… |
Continue reading Pollard & Nordberg
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pollard & Nordberg [2019] FamCA 365
- Case
- [2019] FamCA 365
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the proper approach to contested evidence, particularly concerning allegations of family violence, when dealing with interim parenting applications. It also considered the validity of a recovery warrant issued by the Magistrates Court after the proceeding had been transferred to the Federal Circuit Court, and the desirability of making interim relocation orders in circumstances where evidence was incomplete. The court also had to review the mother's appeal under s 96(4) of the relevant legislation.
Justice Wilson found that the recovery order made by the Magistrates Court was a nullity, as it had been issued after the proceeding had been transferred to the Federal Circuit Court. The court conducted a de novo hearing of the appeal and reviewed extensive authorities. It concluded that better evidence was required regarding the best interests of the children before an interim relocation order could be made.
Consequently, the father's application for a recovery order was dismissed. The mother's application for a relocation order was adjourned for further hearing before Judge Burchardt. Until that hearing, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility, the children were to live with her, and the father was to have supervised time with the children in New South Wales, with provisions for telephone or Skype contact in default of agreement.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
I dismiss the father’s application for a recovery order made in paragraph 3 of his initiating application dated 22 March 2019.
2.
The mother’s application for a relocation order made in paragraph 4 of her amended response dated 31 May 2019 is adjourned for further hearing before his Honour Judge Burchardt on 10 July 2019.
3.
Until the hearing before his Honour Judge Burchardt –
(a) the mother is to have sole parental responsibility;
(b) the children are to live with the mother;
(c) the father is to have supervised time with the children in New South Wales at times to be agreed; and
(d) in default of agreement the father is to have time by telephone or Skype for up to a half hour per day.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.