Ramsay and Wade

In the Federal Magistrates Court, the matter of Ramsay v Wade was heard by Scarlett FM, who delivered the judgment on 19 December 2012. The Applicant, Mr Ramsay, sought interim parenting orders in respect of his two children with the Respondent, Ms Wade. The children currently lived with their mother. The Father filed an application for parenting and property orders, seeking interim orders for equal shared parental responsibility and specified time with the children. The Mother opposed these orders and sought a range of orders, including restrictions on the Father's contact with the children, and an injunction under section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 restraining the Father from assaulting, molesting, harassing, threatening or otherwise interfering with her, the children, the children's maternal grandparents or their maternal uncle. The Mother also sought orders restraining him from intimidating or stalking herself and these other people, going within 50 metres of her residence or place of work, approaching her within 12 hours of consuming alcohol, damaging her property and other matters.

The court considered the relevant law, including the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm and the matters set out in subsections 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. The court also considered the need to take action under subsection 67ZBB(2) as soon as practicable after the notice is filed and, if appropriate, within 8 weeks after the notice is filed. The court made orders by consent on 5th November 2012 restraining the Father from consuming alcohol or using prohibited drugs during or for 12 hours before spending time with the children; directed the parties to attend a Child Dispute Conference with a Family Consultant on 5th November; appointed an Independent Children's Lawyer on 7th November; and heard an application for interim parenting orders on 10th December.

The court concluded that the Father's drug and alcohol issues were a concern and the court must take a cautious approach to ensure the safety of the children. There should be a prohibition on the Father consuming alcohol or using any prohibited drug when he is spending time with the children, but the restriction should operate for a period of 24 hours beforehand, rather than the previous 12 hours to which the Father consented. In addition, the Father must submit himself to chain of custody urinalysis on no fewer than two occasions each month, at times randomly selected by the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court also concluded that a ban on the children being brought into contact with the alleged perpetrator, the cousin, would appear to be a suitable way of protecting the child from harm.

The court ordered that the Respondent Mother is to have sole parental responsibility for the children of the marriage. The children are to live with the Mother. The Applicant and the Respondent are to keep each other advised at all times of their residential address, residential telephone number and an emergency contact telephone number. The Applicant and the Respondent are to inform each other of any change to their telephone numbers within twenty-four (24) hours of such change. The children are to spend time with the Father at the home of the Father’s parents, subject to certain conditions, including supervision by the paternal grandmother. The children are not to be brought into contact with their cousin at any time. The Father is not to consume any alcoholic drink at any time when he is spending time with the children or for twenty-four (24) hours beforehand. The Father is not to administer to himself any prohibited drug at any time when he is spending time with the children or for twenty-four (24) hours beforehand. The Father must submit for chain of custody urinalysis upon request by the Independent Children’s Lawyer as follows: on no fewer than two (2) occasions in each month including on weekends as randomly nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer; under supervision; such testing is to take place on the same days as the request is made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer; the urinalysis testing is to be conducted in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard 4308:2008: Procedure for the collection, detection and quantitation of drugs of abuse in urine; the Father must forward a copy of each urinalysis test result to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Mother’s lawyers within forty-eight (48) hours of his receipt of the test result; and the Father must pay for the testing. The consent in writing to be signed by the paternal grandmother must refer specifically to the conditions on supervision set out in Order (7) above. The arrangements in Order (7) above will not come into force until the form of consent referred to in Order (8) above is filed at the Court and sealed copies are served on the solicitor for the Respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The court certified that the preceding seventy-three (73) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM.