STILLER & HITCHENS
[2011] FMCAfam 1406
•5 December 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| STILLER & HITCHENS | [2011] FMCAfam 1406 |
| FAMILY LAW – Children – application for parenting orders relating to a child aged 8 years. FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Change of venue – where mother and child live in [O] – where application can be heard on circuit. |
| Applicant: | MR STILLER |
| Respondent: | MS HITCHENS |
| File Number: | SYC 5740 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 5 December 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 5 December 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 5 December 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Mr Choy |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Jeffrey Choy Legal |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Ms Garvin |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Garvins Solicitors |
ORDERS
As provided by s.11F of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties are to attend a Child Dispute Conference with a Family Consultant at the [O] Circuit on a date to be fixed by the Parramatta Registry and pursuant to s.11C of the Act the conference is to be reportable.
The proceeding is to be transferred to the Parramatta Registry of the Court.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Stiller & Hitchens is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 5740 of 2011
| MR STILLER |
Applicant
And
| MS HITCHENS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
What I have is an application for parenting orders by the Father in respect of a little girl called [X], who was born [in] 2003. [X] lives with her mother in [O]. Father has been living in New Zealand, in [omitted]. He has since relocated back to Australia and is living in [L].
The Mother submits that the appropriate venue should be the [O] and [D] circuit of this Court, on the basis of convenience. Certainly it would suit the Mother’s convenience; she lives and works in the [O] area and she has a solicitor from [O].
The Father’s solicitor is Sydney-based. The Father lives at [L], which is at [omitted]. The Father would prefer that the matter remain in Sydney, and he does have a back condition which hinders his travel. Of course I have every sympathy for people with a back condition; only someone with a back condition really knows how painful a bad back can be.
What the Court must do when considering an application for change of venue is to consider overall convenience and the length of time which it would take for the matter to be resolved. This Court in Sydney has an overabundance of work. There is certainly plenty of work on circuit, but a lot more work gets done.
To my mind, the matter which weighs heavily is the fact that the child lives with the Mother in [O], and the Court would normally look at proceedings being conducted as close to the child as possible.
There is a rail service to [O].
I am satisfied in the circumstances that the application should be transferred to the Parramatta registry of the Federal Magistrates Court to be dealt with at the next sittings on the [O] circuit. I am of a view that this is a matter where a child dispute conference should take place.
I make that under the provisions of section 11F of the Family Law Act that the parties attend a child dispute conference. Under the provisions of section 11C it should be reportable. It is my view that that should also take place on circuit. The matter will go to Parramatta with a view to being dealt with on circuit.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Date: 15 December 2011
0
0
0