REEMA & BABOOR (EX TEMPORE)

[2019] FamCA 1063

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REEMA & BABOOR (EX TEMPORE) [2019] FamCA 1063

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where not appropriate to bifurcate the proceedings

APPLICANT: MR REEMA

RESPONDENT: MS BABOOR

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER: PAC 1995 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 15 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Hannam J

HEARING DATE: 15 April 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: O’Sullivan Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms C. Cantrall

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Walter & Elliott Family Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Legal Aid NSW

Orders

THE COURT NOTES

A.    The Application in a Case filed 15 April 2019 which I am not dealing with today has been brought to my attention and I note that the orders sought in the relation to the expert report Order 8 to 15 have been dealt with in the course of today’s court event.

B.    Orders 1 and 3 to 7 in the order referred to above are in the nature of a further interim order and will be subject to a threshold hearing in relation to whether there has been a sufficient change in the child’s circumstances that it is in the child’s best interest to revisit the interim parenting orders.  This should be processed and a date allocated in the usual way.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. The Application for an order to bifurcate the proceedings and expedite the parenting proceedings in order 2 of the Application in a Case filed 15 April 2019 is dismissed.

THE COURT NOTES

C.    It has been raised on the mother’s behalf that given the nature of the allegations in this matter it would be detrimental to the mother and adverse to her interests if she were inadvertently to come into contact with the other parties on any occasion.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. Any of the Rules which provide for information to be given to the parties concerning the attendance of the other party at a particular time or place upon the expert or any other person in connecting with the proceedings are dispensed with and in particular Rule 15.46.

2. By consent, orders are made in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 8 and noting paragraph 9 of the consent orders marked Exhibit A with the following amendments:

   a.     Subparagraph (e) is removed from order 1;

   b.The words “short term and” are to be inserted in order 1(g) prior to the words “long term impacts”;

   c.The words “psychological” is to be added after the word “Including” in 1(h);

   d.Adding in 1(h) the potential long term and short term impacts upon the child if orders are made she spend no time with the father or paternal grandparents.

THE COURT NOTES

D.    It has been agreed today that the expert is to be provided with the full transcript of the Local Court proceedings, the father’s record of interview with police for the purposes of the Local Court proceedings, my Interim Judgment dated 1 November 2018.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. Dr C is appointed as the court expert.

THE COURT NOTES

E.     Each party has an outstanding Application in a Case which will be dealt with and listed in the usual way.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Reema & Baboor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 1995 of 2018

MR REEMA

Applicant

And

MS BABOOR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Now, as far as Order two is concerned, I don’t propose bifurcating the proceedings because it becomes a very costly procedure not only for the parties but in terms of court resources.  There is also nothing about this matter that would justify expedition, especially since we don’t even have the expert’s report yet.  Expedition would put these proceedings ahead of any other matters in this registry, including a number of parenting matters that we have in this registry that involve serious issues of risk to children, including the largest Magellan list in Australia.  So there would be no purpose in bifurcating them.  It wouldn’t get expedition as opposed to any other parenting matter.

2. It seems that in the property matter, I don’t know why, there has been some delay.  There seems to be no reason why everything that needs to be done in relation to preparing the property matter for final hearing can’t be done.  Having a look at court resources and the relative need for expedition between this matter and any others, that there would be nothing that would justify it.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam delivered on 15 April 2019

Associate: 

Date:  4 September 2019