State Central Authority and Tirzsa

[2008] FamCA 96

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & TIRZSA [2008] FamCA 96

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – Application by SCA for a further adjournment so as to enable investigation of proceedings brought by the wife in Zagreb and effect of the order made resulting from those proceedings – Additional matters required for investigation were still outstanding – Adjournment granted.

Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986;
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: State Central Authority -Secretary to the Department of Human Services

RESPONDENT: Ms Tirzsa

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10788 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 14 February 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Guest J

HEARING DATE: 14 February 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr O’Shannessy

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Victorian Government Solicitor

THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That all extant applications be adjourned for mention only before the Honourable Justice Guest at 9.30 am on Wednesday, 5 March 2008.

(2) That pursuant to rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 this matter reasonably required the attendance of Counsel.

NOTATION:

The purpose of the further adjournment to the above date was to enable the State Central Authority to make further enquiries in Croatia and for the parties to consider a resolution of the outstanding issues.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgement under the pseudonym State Central Authority & Tirzsa is approved pursuant to s121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10788  of 2007

State Central Authority - Secretary to the Department of Human Services

Applicant

And

Ms Tirzsa

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes on for mention pursuant to orders made by me on 24 January 2008.  Mr O'Shannessy continues to appear for the State Central Authority; the respondent wife appears in person with the assistance of a new interpreter, who has been sworn, and assisted the wife throughout the duration of the discussion this morning. 

2. On behalf of the State Central Authority, Mr O’Shannessy informed me that the further evidence required is not yet available.  Issues were raised by me at the last hearing where I expressed concern to read, albeit by way of bald assertion, that the father was seeking the return of the child to Zagreb, Croatia and his placement with the Ministry of Welfare.  It is clear that no written documents were produced about this. 

3. I also sought further material and information as to the status of the father's current proceedings in Zagreb, which I understand are two-tiered:  firstly, to “divest the mother of parental care” and secondly, proceedings involving some criminal aspect, the impact of which is utterly unknown to me.  I made it clear that they were matters, amongst others raised by me, that may require consideration by way of expert evidence.  For example, what rights, duties and responsibilities arise pursuant to the orders made in Zagreb and did the father have a right to invoke the court's assistance in determining where the child should live, or at least have the right to apply for an injunction to restrain his removal from Croatia to a foreign country?  As I indicated in the course of my discussions with Mr O'Shannessy, I would be surprised if it did not. 

4. I have been informed by Mr O'Shannessy, and from which the wife drew no dissent, that on 12 February 2008 an order was made in the Municipal Civil Court at Zagreb for the father to have, in effect, “meetings” with the child in Australia for one month in December and January of each year.  There was some uncertainty as to the status of the husband in relation to his presence or not at that hearing.  Mr O'Shannessy submitted that the State Central Authority required time to investigate the extent to which the orders of 12 February 2008 could impact upon any decision I may make in the proceedings.  Furthermore, the matters that I raised at the last hearing in terms of production of documents and the like have not yet come to bear. 

5. I heard from the wife.  She said something about the State Central Authority refusing to accept documents that had been provided by her to them and then went on to make submissions in relation to what I suspect were confidential discussions and of a privileged nature.  I brought that discussion to an end.  It seems to me that this matter is capable of a sensible resolution.  If not, then the issues raised by me at the earlier hearing must be answered and I will make a decision one way or the other on the appropriate material that I have before me. 

6. In terms of a period of adjournment, following discussion with both Mr O'Shannessy and the wife, I propose to adjourn the matter for mention before me at 9.30 am on 5 March 2008.  I certify the counsel for attendance in this matter.  I will direct that the short ex tempore remarks be transcribed and placed on the court file.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Guest.

Associate: 

Date:  22 February 2008