Roman and Middleton and Anor

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROMAN & MIDDLETON & ANOR [2015] FCCA 2565

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application by paternal Grandmother to intervene in proceedings – Grandmother (and one of the children) are indigenous Australians – Grandmother supports the Father of one of the children – mutual allegations of abuse and family violence.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CA, 65C(ba) & (c), 65D(1)

Aldridge v Keaton (2009) FLC ¶93-421; (2010) 42 Fam LR 369
Carlson v Bowden (2009) 40 Fam LR 327
Church v Overton (2009) 40 Fam LR 357
KAM v MJR; JIG (Intevener) (1999) FLC ¶92-847; (1998) 24 Fam LR 656
Valentine v Lacerra (2014) 49 Fam LR 255

Applicant: MR ROMAN

First Respondent: MS MIDDLETON

Second Respondent: MR TAIT

File Number: CAC 711 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 6 August 2015

Date of Last Submission: 9 September 2015

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 22 September 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Friedlieb Byrne, Wagga Wagga

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Tarella Law, Albury

Solicitors for Second Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Goldbrook Family Law, Canberra

ORDERS

1. The Amended Application in a Case, filed by the paternal Grandmother on 17^th July 2015, be dismissed;

2. It is requested that the paternal Grandmother be part of the assessment by the Family Consultant;

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged;

4. Having regard to the locality of the parties and the children, the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales is requested to appoint an Independent Children’s Lawyer for the children the subject of this proceeding from either the (omitted) or (omitted) areas.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 711 of 2015

MR ROMAN

Applicant

And

MS MIDDLETON

First Respondent

MR TAIT

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This matter, substantively, concerns parenting orders in relation to 4 year old X, and 1 year old Y.  These children have different Fathers – the Applicant and the Second Respondent.  To date, the Second Respondent has not engaged in the proceedings at all.

2. More immediately, formally, there is an Application, filed 12^th June, by which the paternal Grandmother, Ms V (the Applicant’s Mother) seeks to intervene in the proceeding.  She is an indigenous Australian, as is her son and her grandson, Y.  Ms V is the paternal Grandmother only of Y.  She claims however that X would regularly stay over at her place, and that, because of the Mother’s alleged mental health issues, she has regularly acted protectively towards X.

3. Ms V also deposes to her support for, and agreement with, the orders sought by her son, the Applicant Father of Y, which include a change of residence of the children to live primarily with the Applicant Father; this Application includes the Father’s non-biological child, X.

4. All parties have filed written submissions pursuant to orders…