Robertson & Marshall
[2025] FedCFamC2F 800
•6 June 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Robertson & Marshall [2025] FedCFamC2F 800
File number(s): SYC 85 of 2025 Judgment of: JUDGE STREET Date of judgment: 6 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Review application – consent orders made – two remaining issues in dispute - whether the father should have FaceTime in the off weeks - whether or not the address of the mother should be disclosed – the Court is not satisfied it is in the best interests of the child to facetime the father in the off weeks or require the mother to disclose her address to the father. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of hearing: 6 June 2025 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T Robertson Solicitor for the Applicant: G & D Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Graham Solicitor for the Respondent: Morris Legal & Conveyancing Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms J Blundell of Jennifer Blundell & Associates ORDERS
SYC 85 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR ROBERTSON
Applicant
AND: MS MARSHALL
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:
6 JUNE 2025
BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties, the child shall spend time with the Father on alternate weekends as follows:
a. On the first alternate weekend, the father’s time shall be from Friday at 5:00pm until Sunday at 4:00pm; and
b. On the second alternate weekend, the father’s time shall be from Saturday 9:00am until Sunday 4:00pm with such time to occur within 120kms from B Service Station, C Street, Town D, NSW.
2.That unless otherwise agreed in writing and pending further order, Order 1 shall continue in a repeating cycle until the child turns 3 years old at which time the Father shall spend time with the child each alternate weekend from Friday at 5:00pm until Sunday at 4:00pm.
3.The applicant father and respondent mother are at liberty to obtain from any school or childcare facility that the child may attend from time to time any information and/or documents that are ordinarily available to parents, including but not limited to childcare/school reports, childcare/school communication Apps, photographs/photograph 3 order forms, notices and newsletters and this order acts as an irrevocable authority to any such school or childcare facility for that purpose.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
4.The Court declines to make any order as sought in respect of FaceTime or disclosure of an address.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET
This was an application for review filed on 12 May 2025 in respect of orders made by Senior Judicial Registrar McGowan on 2 May 2025. In substance, the parties were able to agree upon all but two issues in respect of the review application and provided consent orders 1 to 3 in a minute signed by the parties and the ICL. The Court is satisfied that the proposed consent orders 1 to 3 are appropriate.
The two issues in dispute were, first, whether the father should have FaceTime in the off weeks in respect of his son X, born in 2023, who is two years old. The second issue concerned whether or not the address of the mother should be disclosed.
Dealing with the first issue, the Court takes into account the objects in s 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and the principles in s 69ZN of the Act. The Court also takes into account the paramount consideration in respect of the best interests of the children under s 60CA of the Act in determining the very narrow issue in the present case and the entitlement under s 69ZL of the Act to give short reasons.
The child at the young age of two is not at an age where the Court has been persuaded that it is necessary in the off weeks to provide for such FaceTime. It appears nothing more than a potential disruption during the period of parenting by the primary caregiver, being the respondent mother (“the mother”). The Court is not satisfied that such an order is in the best interests of the child.
In relation to the mother’s address, the mother has made allegations in relation to the history of the matter that it is not necessary for this Court to determine. The father's contention that there are no such issues is not a matter that the Court would determine on an application for disclosure of address.
The existing orders do not require any disclosure of the mother's address. The Court was informed that there was a person with whom the mother was apparently the subject of an order not to live with the same. The material before this Court does not on its face explain fully why such an order was made. Be that as it may, the Court has been informed by the ICL that the mother has relocated to an address on her own, on a lease. The Court sees no reason why the applicant father (“the father”) needs that address.
The contention that there were problems with a flood or that the father wants to know if there is an emergency and that he does not have a direct mobile phone contact with the mother are not reasons that justify this Court in disclosing the address in circumstances where it is not supported by the ICL.
The Court is not satisfied it is in the best interests of the child to require the mother to disclose her address to the father. The Court has taken into account the material that was admitted into evidence and, in particular, the child impact report dated 11 April 2025, and that the child is of Aboriginal descent from his maternal lineage.
For these reasons, the Court declines to make any order as sought in respect of FaceTime or disclosure of an address.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street. Associate:
Dated: 12 June 2025
0
0
1