Raymond and Choate

[2013] FCCA 2262

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAYMOND & CHOATE [2013] FCCA 2262

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – 14 year old child – evidence that mother suffers from borderline personality disorder – enmeshed relationship with child – whether acceptable risk of any contact or communication.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CA, 60B, 61DA, 65DAA, 60CC, Part VII

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant: MR RAYMOND

Respondent: MS CHOATE

File Number: SYC 2546 of 2007

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing date: 16 December 2013

Date of Last Submission: 16 December 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 17 December 2013

REPRESENTATION

Mr Raymond In person

Ms Choate In person

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Eldershaw

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW Sydney Central Family Law

ORDERS

1. All outstanding Applications be dismissed.

2. All previous Orders are discharged.

3. The Father have sole parental responsibility for [X] born [in] 2000 (“the child”).

4. The child live with the Father.

5. The Mother be restrained from having any form of contact or communication with the child.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYC 2546 of 2007

MR RAYMOND

Applicant

And

MS CHOATE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

1. This case is about [X], born [in] 2000, who is nearly 14 years old.  It is about where she should live and how much time she should have with each of her parents.  Her father is the applicant.  Her mother the respondent. 

2. The case has a long history which is adverted to in my two earlier judgments in this case dated 11 December 2012 in respect of interim orders and 17 November 2011 in relation to final orders.  There is no need in these present reasons to set out the history again, other than to the extent that it relates to the period since December 2012. 

3. The chronology prepared by Ms Eldeshaw of counsel, appearing for the Independent’s Children Lawyer, as well as the procedural history that she provided in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case outline document is attached in Schedule One to these reasons.  On 11 December 2012, for the reasons set out therein, I restrained the mother from having any communication with [X] since then. Such communication as there has been between the mother and [X] has been indirect and by way of electronic means.

4. The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer are ad idem in proposing orders for sole parental responsibility in favour of the father, that [X] live with the father, have no time with her mother and that there be no communication between the mother and [X].  Indeed, the orders proposed are consistent with the existing interim orders. 

5. The mother’s proposal is contained in exhibit R1, which is incorporated and reproduced in the Schedule Two to these reasons.  In effect, she proposes a reversal of the existing care arrangements with [X]…