Rocacelli & Seles

[2019] FamCA 105

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROCACELLI & SELES [2019] FamCA 105

CHILDREN – Interim Hearing – Where competing proposals – Where the father seeks changes to the existing interim parenting orders before the trial - Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer propose that existing arrangements continue until trial – Where disputed facts are unable to be resolved in interim hearing – Where family violence – Extent to which the father was domestically violent during the relationship – Issue of level of risk the father poses to the child in an unsupervised setting –Where benefit to the child maintaining a meaningful relationship with the father provided she is safe – Child’s wishes  – Where present orders are maintained – Where the father’s application is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Mauldera & Orbel (2014) FLC 93-602
Wacando v The Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR
S v Australian Crime Commission (2005) 144 FCR 431
Harridge & Harridge [2010] FamCA 445
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100
Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654
Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
SS v AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

APPLICANT: Mr Rocacelli

RESPONDENT: Ms Seles

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Falcomer

FILE NUMBER: DGC 1007 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 28 February 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: In Cairns

PLACE HEARD: Cairns via telephone

JUDGMENT OF: Tree J

HEARING DATE: 14 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITORS FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN'S LAWYER:

Spina Kyle Waldon

Orders

1. The father’s Application in a Case filed 9 October 2018 be dismissed.

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 Rocacelli & Seles 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 CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER: DGC1007/2017

Mr Rocacelli

Applicant

And

Ms Seles

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION  

1. On 9 October 2018 I conducted a Trial Management Hearing in these parenting proceedings, and listed the trial to commence on Monday 8 April 2019, with an estimated hearing time of five days.  However immediately prior to that Trial Management Hearing commencing, Mr Rocacelli (“the father”) filed an Application in a Case seeking changes to the existing interim orders, pursuant to which each fortnight he has 30 minutes of supervised Skype communication with X, born in 2008, and hence presently 10 years of age, (“the child”).  Ms Seles (“the mother”) and the Independent Children's Lawyer oppose the father’s application.  On 14 February 2019 I heard the father’s…