RITCHIE & FEAKES

[2013] FCCA 252

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RITCHIE & FEAKES [2013] FCCA 252

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – special needs child – parental responsibility for child’s medical decisions – time spent with father.

Applicant: MR RITCHIE

Respondent: MS FEAKES

File Number: SYC 5143 of 2008

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing date: 18 April 2013

Date of Last Submission: 18 April 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 18 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant (self-represented)

The Respondent (self-represented)

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Kathryn Renshall

THE COURT ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. Order 2(a) made 28 March 2013 be varied so that the child [X] born [in] 2006 spend time with her father each alternate Saturday at 10am commencing from Saturday 20 April 2013 and otherwise in accordance with the existing orders.

2. The parents be granted equal shared parental responsibility save for decisions in relation to [X]’s medical and health matters and, in this regard, the mother is to have sole parental responsibility in relation to those decisions only, provided that she notifies the father of decisions made.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYC 5143 of 2008

MR RITCHIE

Applicant

And

MS FEAKES

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes back before me on very short notice following the making of orders on 28 March 2013.  I am not going to cover the issues raised in those Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment.  The matter has come back for a number of reasons.  Contact has not happened in accordance with the orders.  The mother has communicated with the Court and the Independent Children’s Lawyer a number of issues relating to that non-compliance, including concerns about [X] being able to cope with contact in the afternoon as may have been envisaged in the first orders.  Also, the parents seem unable to make decisions about the ongoing medical treatment for [X].

2. The Independent Children’s Lawyer has had discussions with [X]’s doctors and has tried to facilitate that communication and agreement between the parents. This is clearly a difficult and frustrating time for both the mother and the father. The focus must be, in the circumstances, on trying to make contact orders work, so that [X] gets to start spending time with her father. The mother proposes that the best time for contact for [X] is on Saturdays at 10am. The father doesn’t oppose that proposal. Indeed, it is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and that is the effect of the orders I have made. 

3. I have made an order, the effect of which is to grant the mother sole parental responsibility about [X]’s medical decisions in circumstances where it is clear that the parents cannot communicate and decisions need to be made.  The mother also raised the prospect of a transfer to the Family Court of Australia;  there is no real basis for that.  It does not come within the protocol for the transfer of cases to that Court and, indeed, having regard to the length of time that I have been involved in this case it would not be in [X]’s best interests that that happens.  The orders that I made on 28 March 2013 are amended in accordance with the orders I have now just made. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Altobelli.

Associate: 

Date:  9 May 2013