Schlick and Anor and Jocum and Ors

[2008] FamCA 594

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCHLICK AND ANOR & JOCUM AND ORS [2008] FamCA 594

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FIRST APPLICANT: MR SCHLICK

SECOND APPLICANT: MRS SCHLICK

FIRST RESPONDENT: MR JOCUMS

SECOND RESPONDENT: MS SCHLICK

THIRD RESPONDENT: MR CHUVAN

FOURTH RESPONDENT: MS H

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: MS K P TERRENCE

FILE NUMBER: PAF 1482 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 17 July 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

HEARING DATE: 17 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANTS: Ms S O'Reilly

SOLICITOR FOR THE

RESPONDENT MOTHER:

Ms R McKenzie

Robyn McKenzie Solicitor

RESPONDENT FATHER: Mr Chuvan
appearing on his own behalf

RESPONDENT MATERNAL 

GRANDMOTHER:

Ms H
appearing on her own behalf

RESPONDENT STEPFATHER: Mr Jocums
appearing on his own behalf

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms K P Terrence

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Applicant Maternal Grandfather and Step-Grandmother be granted leave to intervene in these proceedings.

2. Ms H be granted leave to file an affidavit in these proceedings.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: PAF 1482 of 2006

MR & MRS SCHLICK

Applicants

And

MR JOCUMS

First Respondent

MS SCHLICK

Second Respondent

MR CHUVAN

Third Respondent

MS H

Fourth Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the child’s maternal grandparents seek leave to intervene in the proceedings. 

2. There are already a number of parties to these proceedings and the matter already has some history. 

3. The matter is next due before the Court on Monday, 11 August 2008 at which time a full family report by Family Consultant, Ms B, will have been prepared. 

4. Ms B prepared, for the purposes of the first day of this matter, an issues assessment.  At that time, the intervention by the applicants was not mooted in any sense. 

5. However, I am informed by Ms Terrence, the Independent Children's Lawyer, that interviews for the family report due to be prepared in contemplation of 11 August date includes, in contemplation, the applicants' intervening in the proceedings.

6. Many of the submissions made in seeking to oppose the application relate to what can be described as the merits of the child’s parenting arrangements - conflict between the parties, the impact that conflict has on the child and the like.

7. All of those matters are matters for trial as distinct from matters relevant to an application to intervene.

8. It is submitted that the application to intervene comes late in the case.  It seems to me that it is true, but, nevertheless, it seems to me in this complex case where a number of parties are already parties to the proceedings and where each of them seek to assert before the Court varying versions of what is in the child’s best interests but it is appropriate to permit her maternal grandparents to also put before the Court facts and circumstances which they assert are in the child’s best interests.

9. Moreover, one of the central issues in this case is, on any view of it, the conflict between the various adults in the child’s life or prospective adults in her life.

10. It seems to me that that issue will be better explored with all of the relevant personnel in the trial proceedings.

11. In objecting to the application, no submissions are made nor is there any evidence before me, that there would be any prejudice to any party such that the application should be refused. 

12. The only possible prejudice is firstly, as suggested by Ms H, the issue of delay.  The matter is docketed to me.  I cannot see that the intervention by the applicants would cause any further delay. 

13. The only other possible prejudice although not raised by anyone in argument, is, it seems to me, that the trial might possibly be longer than what it would otherwise be. 

14. I am not convinced that the trial would be longer.  I suspect, in fact, that having all parties involved might, given the central place of conflict between the adults as an issue in the proceedings, in fact, make the proceedings somewhat shorter.

15. Further, I am concerned that the ventilation of all issues said to be relevant with respect to the child’s best interests might see a trial court in the position of needing to hear from the applicants about many of those issues.

16. It seems to me better that those individuals are parties to the case so that they can be properly heard in agitating for a particular result.

17. Importantly, no party suggests that there is any prejudice to the child with respect to the intervention per se although clearly, as I have identified, adult conflict is a significant prejudice alleged by parties in respect of the child. 

18. For those reasons, I propose to grant leave to the applicants to intervene in the proceedings and I will issue formal orders to that effect.

19. I will note, as part of my reasons, that Ms H, you raised during the course of argument that specific issue, namely that there were false statements made in the affidavit of at least one of the interveners, possibly both and that, as a factual issue, you sought to adduce evidence in respect of those factual issues because you say that many of the things or some of the things they say are wrong. I will note that the resolution of all of those factual issues together with the resolution of any other factual issues are matters that need to be determined at a trial as distinct from an application by them to intervene in the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy.

Associate:  …

Date:  29 July 2008