REDDY & ARENA

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Brown considered an application by a father seeking to spend time with his child, who was almost fourteen years old. Final orders made in 2009 had granted the mother sole parental responsibility and made no provision for the father to spend time with either this child or the older brother, who was seventeen. The father had not interacted with either child since mid-2009. Preliminary assessments indicated that both children were unwilling to spend time with their father, who resided in Adelaide while the mother and children lived in Sydney. The mother alleged that the father had subjected her and the children to family violence and sought summary dismissal of the father's application. The father sought supervised time with the younger child in Sydney at his expense.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the father's application to spend time with his younger child should be dismissed summarily, or whether it should proceed to a final hearing. This required the court to consider the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, particularly in light of the significant time that had elapsed since the father's last contact, the children's expressed unwillingness to spend time with him, and the mother's allegations of family violence. The court also had to assess whether there was a realistic prospect of the father's application succeeding, or if it was vexatious or an abuse of process.

Judge Brown reasoned that the children's unwillingness to spend time with their father, coupled with the long period of no contact and the serious allegations of family violence, meant that it was highly unlikely that any court would make orders for the father to spend time with the children in the foreseeable future. The court applied the principles governing summary dismissal of applications in family law proceedings, which require a high threshold to be met before an application is dismissed without a full hearing. In this instance, the court found that the father's application had no real prospect of success and that continuing the proceedings would not be in the best interests of the children, as it would likely cause them further distress and anxiety.

Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the application filed by the father on 5 July 2018, as amended on 25 February 2019.