State Central Authority and Tirzsa (No. 2)

[2008] FamCA 148

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & TIRZSA (NO. 2) [2008] FamCA 148

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – Application by S.C.A. for a further adjournment to allow discussion between the parties for a resolution of the proceedings – Application consented to by the respondent and orders made.

Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986
Family Law Act (1975) (as amended)

APPLICANT: STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY - SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

RESPONDENT: MS TIRZSA

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10788 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 5 March 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Guest J

HEARING DATE: 5 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Thai

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 Thursday, 13 March 2008.

IT IS DIRECTED

1. That the ex tempore judgment delivered this day be transcribed, and when transcribed a copy be placed on the Court file and made available to the parties.

NOTATION

The purpose of the adjournment sought by the State Central Authority is to provide further time for the parties to negotiate a resolution.

IT IS NOTED that the publication of this judgment under the pseudonym State Central Authority and Tirzsa is approved pursuant to s 121(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 returns to me pursuant to orders I made on 14 February 2008 on which day I delivered a short extempore Reasons for Judgment explaining why all extant applications were adjourned for mention only before me at 9.30 am this day.

2. A Notation to the order recites that the purpose of the further adjournment was to enable the State Central Authority (as applicant) to make further specific inquiries in Zagreb and for the parties to consider a resolution of the outstanding issues.  Ms Thai appears for the State Central Authority this morning and the respondent wife appears in person assisted by an interpreter. 

3. Ms Thai has helpfully explained to me the basis for a further adjournment to 9.30 am on 13 March 2008.  I propose to allow that adjournment for the reasons given.  She has indicated to me, which I unreservedly accept, that proposals have been advanced by the husband to the wife on a without prejudice basis in a genuine endeavour to try to resolve the outstanding issues concerning their son.  Ms Thai submitted to me that the State Central Authority supports the fact that further time be allowed for both the husband and the wife to come to some form of agreement.

4. The wife has informed me this morning that she has had direct communication with her former husband, and I suspect that there have been negotiations taking place between all parties in a genuine endeavour to come to a sensible and dignified adjustment to this problem.  I will make the orders as sought by consent.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Guest.

Associate: 

Date:  12 March 2008.