Robinson and Shannon (No. 3)

[2014] FamCA 635

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROBINSON & SHANNON (NO. 3) [2014] FamCA 635

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Publication Order – Where there are concerns regarding the Mother’s mental health – Where the Mother may require a litigation guardian for the purpose of pursuing parenting orders in these proceedings – Where it is necessary that the hearing of the Father’s Application in a Case be adjourned

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Robinson

RESPONDENT:	Ms Shannon
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Michael Purcell

FILE NUMBER: TVC 853 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 30 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 30 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Dillon Bowers Lawyers

FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Purcell Taylor Lawyers

Orders

It is ordered that:

1. The Father’s Application in a Case filed 24 July 2014 be adjourned for further mention before the Principal Registrar at 10.00 am on 28 August 2014, with all parties given leave to appear via video link from the Family Court, Townsville Registry.

2. The compliance hearing listed before the Registrar at 11.30 am on 14 August 2014 be vacated.

3. Pursuant to s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Independent Children’s Lawyer have leave to publish to Mr S the family reports obtained in this matter together with the report of Dr R dated 7 April 2014, and the Reasons for Judgment and Orders delivered by the Honourable Justice Kent on the 24 July 2014.

4. Mr S is authorised to publish to the Office of Adult Guardian the documents referred to in Order (3) hereof.

It is ordered until further order that:

1. The times prescribed for the filing of material and other trial directions made by Order of Registrar Boyd on the 23 April 2014, be suspended pending the further mention of this matter on 28 August 2014.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Robinson & Shannon (No. 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: TVC 853 of 2010

Mr Robinson

Applicant

And

Ms Shannon

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 24 July 2014 I heard and determined an application made without notice within the meaning of Rule 5.12 of the Family Law Rules 2004, concerning the children the subject of these parenting proceedings, namely M born in 2004 and B born in 2007.

2. I delivered ex tempore reasons in respect of the orders I made on that date and will not repeat them here, but reference to those Reasons provides the background to the current events concerning this matter. 

3. One of the orders I made on 24 July 2014 was that the Application be again mentioned today.  That was in circumstances that the hearing was on an ex parte basis and the orders were made on an ex parte basis and consistent with the relevant rules was the requirement that there be an early return date from 24 July 2014, to enable and afford the mother an opportunity to be heard.

4. In the event, as Exhibit 1 reflects, being a letter from E Law Firm, dated 29 July 2014, the mother is currently a voluntary patient at the acute mental health unit at D Hospital.  She has been such a patient since Friday 25 July 2014.  It is understood that the mother will remain a patient at the unit for the foreseeable future and obviously she was not able to appear in Court from Townsville via video link today.  Mr C, the solicitor and author of that letter, did the Court the courtesy of appearing today, albeit that he does not have formal instructions from the mother in the current circumstances. 

5. Obviously, in circumstances where the mother is addressing health issues and is not able to appear today, it is currently uncertain as to when she will be able to appear or whether she will be able to represent herself or instruct solicitors.  It may well be that she will ultimately require a litigation guardian for the purpose of pursuing the parenting orders which she may seek in these proceedings.

6. In these circumstances, I adjourn the further hearing of this Application to a mention to be held on 28 August 2014 before the Principal Registrar located in the Brisbane registry.  That will be a mention date on the basis that between now and then it might be determined whether or not the mother is in need of a litigation guardian or whether she can instruct solicitors.  Further, more should be known by then as to the status of her mental health and the progress of her treatment and when it might be that she has sufficiently recovered to participate in the proceedings or to instruct lawyers.

7. I have noted in the course of the hearing that by virtue of my order of 24 July 2014 the father has sole parental responsibility for the children.  It may well be that in the proper exercise of that sole parental responsibility, the father can satisfy himself of voluntary arrangements between now and 28 August 2014 for the children to spend some time with their mother or to communicate with her and that might be facilitated by the maternal grandfather, who is present in Court in Townsville this morning.

8. Obviously, there is no sufficient evidence one way or the other for the Court to make formal orders in this respect, so the Court must rely upon the father’s exercise of his sole parental responsibility in that respect between now and 28 August 2014.  Obviously, in circumstances where these children are only nine and six years of age respectively and obviously have a history of a close relationship with their mother, there is an imperative that they have some time and communication with her as soon as that is possible, consistent with their own best interests, vis-à-vis the mother’s mental health.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 30 July 2014.

Associate: 

Date: 30 July 2014