Sheffield and Collins

[2008] FamCA 657

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHEFFIELD & COLLINS [2008] FamCA 657

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Dismissal

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: MR SHEFFIELD

RESPONDENT: MS COLLINS

FILE NUMBER: DGF 900 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 14 July 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 14 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

Mr Rogers

Victoria Legal Aid

Orders

1. That all extant applications be struck out for want of prosecution.

2. That all proceedings be removed from the list of cases awaiting a hearing.

3. That the reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and placed on the court file.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  DGF 900 of 2006

MR SHEFFIELD

Applicant

And

MS COLLINS

Respondent

And

MR ROGERS

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application that was filed back in March of 2006 by the father, Mr Sheffield.  On that occasion he sought orders that the child of the marriage to Ms Collins, who was born in August 2001, reside with him and that he be solely responsible for her short and long‑term care, welfare and development.  His application went on to say that he wanted the contact by the child with her mother to be by agreement between the parties.

2. The response to that application was filed by the mother on 24 April 2006.  She sought almost mirror orders in relation to the question of the day‑to‑day care of the child but proposed that the father have face-to‑face contact on alternate weekends and holiday time.  She also sought other injunctive relief.

3. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions and an independent children's lawyer was appointed.  The file notes that orders were made in November 2006, December 2006 on two occasions, twice in February 2007 and then the proceedings stopped.  The last activity on the file shows that the matter was before the senior registrar on 7 February 2008, when there was no appearance of the parties.

4. I am told by Mr Rogers, who is the independent children's lawyer, that the mother was deported to the United States of America in about October 2007 on the basis that her visa had expired. 

5. The solicitors for the husband, however, are still shown on the record as Belleli King and Associates of Dandenong.  My associate wrote to them, on 30 June 2008, a letter which clearly indicates that the matter is listed for mention before me at 4 pm this day.  There has been no appearance on behalf of the father, nor of anyone from Belleli King and Associates.  The same letter was also sent to the mother at an address in K, and that letter has come back, not surprisingly, today unclaimed.

6. It seems that the issue of the child is now largely resolved by the events that have overtaken the parties.  Mr Rogers says that there has been no activity involving him since November 2007, at which time the father indicated through his lawyers that he intended to proceed with the applications that he was then proposing. 

7. As so much water has passed under the bridge, it seems that the father has decided not to pursue the matter and probably at this stage anyway does not need to.  Accordingly, I am concluding that he does not want to prosecute his application.  In the circumstances, his application is struck out and all proceedings are removed from the list of cases awaiting a hearing.

I certify that the preceding Seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: …

Date:  23 July 2008