Prior and Ronson
[2012] FamCA 800
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PRIOR & RONSON | [2012] FamCA 800 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – children to live with the mother – the youngest child to spend supervised time with the father - the eldest child to spend time with the father according to her wishes |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Prior |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Ronson |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Perry Weston |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 2694 | of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 14 August 2012 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Dessau J |
| HEARING DATE: | 13 & 14 August 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Byrne |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Wisewould Mahoney Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Moisidis |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Meier Denison Guymer Pty Ltd |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms McCarthy |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Perry Weston |
Orders
That all extant Orders be discharged.
That the children of the relationship: H (born … January 2000) and B (born … December 2003) (“the children”) live with the Mother.
That subject to paragraphs 10 and 13 of these Orders, H communicate with the Father in accordance with her wishes and the Mother facilitate H’s time upon her request to spend time with the Father.
That B spend with the Father as follows:
(i)For a period of two hours on two occasions commencing Father’s Day, Sunday 2 September 2012 and on 4 November 2012;
(ii)Thereafter, commencing 6 January 2013 on the first Sunday of each alternate month for four hours;
(iii)Other times by agreement.
In relation to Order 4, the time spent be agreed between the parties or as can be provided by R Contact Centre, and the Father meet any costs associated with the use of the Centre.
For the purposes of time B is to spend with her Father, that changeover occur at R Contact Centre, provided that in the event that R Contact Centre is unable to accommodate changeover specified in these orders, or agreed between the parties, the Father’s time with B shall occur on the next date available at the Contact Centre.
That for the purposes of time B spends with her Father, Ms T (the Father’s partner) be in attendance with B’s sister, N (born … April 2010).
Without admitting the necessity for such an Order, for the purposes of time spent in accordance with Order 4 the Father:
(i) Is restrained from consuming alcohol for 24 hours prior to the time spent; and
(ii)the father is restrained from transporting B in a motor vehicle driven by him unless prior to that time he provides a copy of a valid driver’s licence held by him to the Mother via her post office box address or by giving it to her through the R Contact Centre.
For the purposes of spending time, the Mother shall:
(i)Within 48 hours do all acts and things to register with the R Contact Centre for their changeover service;
(ii)To transport B to the R Contact Centre at the dates and times nominated and it is noted that she has already made the necessary application;
(iii)To actively support B spending time with her Father, in accordance with these orders.
That the Father spend time with and communicate with the children as follows:
(i)By letter, card or gift to the Mother’s post office box address at any reasonable time with the Mother being required to ensure that such communications are passed onto the children.
That each of the parties keep the other informed of their mailing address, mobile telephone numbers and schools attended by the children.
That the Father be entitled to receive all school reports, correspondence, school photographs, applications, notices and other material normally received by parents from the children’s school or schools, at the expense of the Father and to be arranged by the Father.
That the Father be permitted to send photographs of N, H and B’s sister, to H and B, at reasonable intervals to the Mother’s post office box.
That the Mother immediately notify the Father by SMS in the event of any significant illness or injury suffered by the children or either of them, which requires medical treatment.
That without admitting the necessary for same, the Mother and the Father be restrained from denigrating, insulting, demeaning or in any way talking in a disrespectful manner about or between themselves or in relation to either of their partners at any time including when in the company of or within the hearing of the children.
Each parent is restrained from showing or giving any documents produced in these proceedings to any other person save that the Independent Children’s Lawyer be permitted to provide a copy of these orders and the Family Reports of Ms H of 10 February 2011 and 23 July 2012 to the children’s schools, treating counsellors, psychologists, B’s paediatrician.
That the Mother be restrained from relocating the children from the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area without the prior written consent of the Father.
That the Mother be permitted to travel to New Zealand with the children provided she gives the Father 30 days written notice:
(i)Before the dates of the proposed travel and copies of the return flight, tickets and itinerary herself and the children.
(ii)Unless the Father agrees in writing to a written request that the Mother and children’s travel with less notice in writing .
Each party is restrained from discussing the proceedings with or in the presence of the children or permitting any other person to do so.
That if required the Father shall do all things and sign all documents and consents necessary for the children to obtain passports or passport renewals.
AND THE COURT ORDERS
That the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.
That if the Mother travels to New Zealand pursuant to Order 18 hereof, that the Mother will provide addresses and contact details of where the children will be staying.
That the Mother do all things necessary to ensure that the children use and are referred to using the second name Ronson.
For the purposes of time spent pursuant to Order 4, after the conclusion of three (3) visits the Father be permitted to have his Mother and Father attend the time spent provided that Ms T and N are in attendance.
It is directed these Orders be explained to both children by Ms H (or a substituted Family Consultant) and the Mother ensure the children attend such appointment and the question of the Mother’s attendance at such information session be at the sole discretion of Ms H.
Pursuant to s65DA(2) and s62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties to adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
NOTATIONS
It is noted that:
(a)The Father has decided not to pursue an order for the children to live with him based solely on the recommendations of the Family Report.
(b)The Father has agreed not to pursue an order for H to spend time with him due to the recommendations contained in the Family Report.
(c)The parties intend to review the time spent arrangements between B and her Father 12 months from the date of these Orders.
(d)The Mother may request that she be permitted to take the children to New Zealand for a family funeral or 24 hours as is the cultural custom that a burial within 48 hours of death. The father will consider any such request in light of these cultural circumstances.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Prior & Ronson has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
FILE NUMBER: MLC 2694 of 2009
| Ms Prior |
Applicant
And
| Mr Ronson |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I need to be satisfied if I do make an order for shared parental responsibility that it would be in the children’s best interests. In this instance I do not think it would be, and I have made that clear. I wanted to emphasise that it is not because there is any finding against the father. There is not. I am trying to look at the practicality, from the children’s point of view.
The ICL is absolutely right when she says that, one way or another, without apportioning blame, there is currently a tenuous link between the father and the children. It makes him obviously less well placed to make those long-term decisions, particularly in relation to H when it seems that he will not be seeing her.
The communication between the parents is non-existent in any sensible form. I see nothing but grief for the girls, a negative impact on the father’s relationship with B which needs to be delicately nurtured, and a negative impact on the probability of a relationship with H, if there is ongoing conflict between the parents in relation to decisions.
Any concern for the children to have the right message about their father’s continued interest in them is ameliorated by the Family Consultant being the one to describe these orders to the children.
I am satisfied too that it is a case, fortunately for the children, where the religious, educational and travel issues are resolved. As I have suggested that the name that they are called by – which should be their father’s as that is their name – so that issue too should be resolved.
For the parents otherwise to be deciding issues together, it would leave areas too fertile for conflict. Wisdom, experience and cases tell me that in a case where it is so fertile for conflict, it is contrary to the children’s best interests to have the parents making those decisions together.
So the responsibility should lie with the mother.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dessau delivered on 14 August 2012.
Associate:
Date: 14 August 2012
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
0
0
0