Sheridan and Sheridan (No. 5)

[2013] FamCA 836

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHERIDAN & SHERIDAN (NO. 5)	[2013] FamCA 836
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – With whom a child communicates – Orders regarding specific issues – Injunctive Orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Sheridan

RESPONDENT:	Ms Sheridan
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2309 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 26 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 26 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Sheridan in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Sheridan in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

UPON NOTING:

(a)The father has been provided with the child H’s mobile telephone number and is able to call the child at reasonable times subject to these orders.

(b)The father is free to attend the child’s soccer matches and attend the appropriate school activities subject with his compliance with these orders.

(c)The proceedings are stood over for interim hearing before the Honourable Justice Dawe at 10.00 am on 10 September 2013.

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:

1. Pending further order both parties are restrained and an injunction is granted restraining them from discussing these proceedings with the child or discussing with other persons in the presence of or hearing of the child SAVE AND EXCEPT as may be necessary for the Family Report.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. Pending further order both parties are restrained and an injunction is granted restraining them from abusing, demeaning or belittling the other party or members of the other party in the presence of or in the hearing of the child.

1. Both parties are restrained and an injunction is granted restraining them from exposing the child to any aspect of drug culture, including the cultivation or use of marijuana or cannabis.

1. Pursuant to Section 62G[2] of the Family Law Act 1975 as amended THAT a Family Consultant provide to the Court a short form Family Report be prepared as soon as practicable as to the wishes of the child H born on … 2001 in relation to the time he spends and communicates with the father.

1. The parties must attend all appointments fixed by the Family Consultant and ensure that the children attend all appointments as notified by the Family Consultant.

1. Both parties are restrained from filing further affidavit material without leave of the Court.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sheridan & Sheridan (No. 5) 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 ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2309 of 2009

Mr Sheridan

Applicant

And

Ms Sheridan

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings which were adjourned from his Honour, Cronin J, after an interim hearing on 30 July 2013.  I have had the opportunity of reading his Honour’s Reasons for Judgment.  The matter came back today and each of the parties have filed further affidavits, although there is some issue as to whether those affidavits have been served.  I directed that the two affidavits of the father be provided to the mother in Court today, and the father acknowledged that he had the mother’s affidavit filed 23 August.  I have made an order restraining the parties from filing any further material without the leave of a judge of this Court.  I note the background and the facts set out in the Reasons of his Honour to which I have referred to earlier. 

2. The father’s application today was that the previous orders be restored, at best or at worst, the child spend two or three nights with him overnight.  I have not made that order as I have no evidence as to the wishes of the child.  There seems to be some differing views in that regard.  The father made it clear that he would not countenance a position of supervised time at this time.  The parties agreed or consented to an approach whereby orders were put in place that neither of them discuss these proceedings with the child except as required by the Family Consultant if there is a joint meeting, and I have made orders restraining them from discussing the proceedings with the child or in the presence of the child except with that exception. 

3. I have also made an order restraining the parties from abusing, demeaning or belittling the other party in the presence or hearing of the child.  I have noted that the mother does not object to the father attending soccer matches provided he does not discuss these proceedings or issues with the child.  The mother had wanted to make an oral application, or attempted to make an oral application, restraining the father from attending at the child’s school, although that seemed on the face of it outside the context of the concerns which she had, that is, that the father was allegedly dealing and/or using drugs.  It seemed to me in the circumstances that there was little evidence upon which to base that material even on the best case that the wife had asserted in her affidavit material.  The father made a similar application and made similar comments in relation to his concerns about the mother. 

4. The school and the police are aware of the conflict that exists between these parties, and the mother has indicated that she has informed them of her concerns about the father’s drug use.  As such, I am satisfied that both the school and the police will be vigilant in relation to this aspect.  The other question was that of the telephone calls between the father and the child.  The mother asserted from the bar table that the father had said he would never see the child again and as such the child was not prepared to call the father but would take calls from him.  After some debate, I directed that the mother provide the child’s telephone number to the father so that he could contact the child subject to the injunctive orders I made earlier which I have referred to in these reasons. 

5. I have ordered a family report, and the matter will go before her Honour, Dawe J, on 10 September next.  I note and adopt the findings of Cronin J and the legal issues to which he referred to in his Reasons.  The situation has not changed apart from; it seems to me, further conflict and further polarisation of the parties.  The child, it seems, has a meaningful relationship with the father, and whilst there is a risk that it can be diminished, bearing in mind the age and the maturity of the child, this is not likely to occur in the short term.  I note from the mother’s statements from the bar table she continues to support a relationship between the child and the father albeit on her terms. 

6. Clearly the parties are in high conflict and their conflict is likely to impact on the development of this child at this significant time in his life.  Far more evidence needs to be before me before I can make orders other than those which were made by his Honour, Cronin J, in July last. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 26 August 2013.

Associate:     

Date:              26 August 2013