Stojanovski and Stojanovski (No. 3)

[2007] FamCA 1494

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STOJANOVSKI & STOJANOVSKI (NO. 3) [2007] FamCA 1494

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting orders omitted to deal with attendance of children at a wedding – Second order – Reasons

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

HUSBAND: Mr Stojanovski

WIFE: Ms Stojanovski

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLF 3496 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 13 December 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Justice Brown

HEARING DATE: 13 December 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE HUSBAND: In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE WIFE: Ms. Buchanan

SOLICITOR FOR THE WIFE: Mahonys

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr. Eidelson

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: T.J. Mulvany & Co.

Orders

1. That notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of the orders dated 13 December, 2007 handed down to the parties this day (the “first Orders”), and subject to the prerequisites and conditions contained in paragraph (8) as to supervision having been met and subject to the requirements of sub-paragraphs (1)(d), (e) and (f) hereof the husband shall spend time with S born … June, 1995, A born … September, 1997 and M born … July, 2002 (“the children”) as follows :

   (a)For the purposes of attending at the wedding of the husband’s relative … on 20 January, 2008. 

   (b)That upon the husband giving the wife’s legal practitioners 48 hours prior written notice in writing of the dates of dress fittings, rehearsals and like attendances that the child M is required to attend, the wife shall deliver M to a representative from the agency of Aiding & Caring for such attendance.  

   (c)The husband shall arrange and then advise the wife’s legal practitioners of the name of the representative from the agency of Aiding & Caring to facilitate and who will supervise the attendance of the children at any necessary attendances described in paragraph (b) hereof and at the pre-marriage party at the bride’s home and at the wedding ceremony and reception on 20 January, 2008 and  IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED  that the wife ensure that the person so supervising has read a copy of these orders and the first orders of the Honourable Justice Brown dated 13 December, 2007 handed down this day. 

   (d)The husband shall meet the cost of the supervision required by paragraph (b) hereof.

   (e)The wife and the husband shall share equally the cost of the supervision at the pre-marriage party at the bride’s home and at the wedding ceremony and reception.

   (f)That the person supervising the children pursuant to these orders shall deliver and collect the children at the commencement and conclusion of the attendances specified in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) hereof.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 3496  of 2005

MR STOJANOVSKI  

Husband

And

MS STOJANOVSKI  

Wife

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (second)

1. This morning I made a number of parenting orders in respect of the children S born in June, 1995, A born in September, 1997 and M born in July, 2002. The orders in respect of the children’s residence and parental responsibility are final orders.  Interim orders provide for the father to spend limited time with the children, supervised, over the next six months or so. 

2. Soon after making the orders it was realised that they omitted to deal with the question of the children’s attendance at the wedding of a relative of the husband, ….  In the course of the trial some evidence was given about this wedding; M had been asked to be a flower girl and was very excited. 

3. Upon realising the omission I had the father called, but he had already left the registry.  I make it clear I am not critical of him for doing that; he had attended court, courteously listened to the outcome and was entitled to leave.  The solicitor for the wife and the independent children’s lawyer advised that both thought it appropriate to make orders which would allow the children to attend the wedding and allow M to act as a flower girl, provided the supervision arrangements made in the earlier orders were in place.  An order has been drafted in those terms.

4. For the reasons set out in the judgment I am not satisfied it would be appropriate for the children to spend time with the husband at that wedding, unsupervised.  It is unrealistic to expect a family member or a member of the wedding party to supervise; a professional agency, as envisaged in the earlier orders, is the obvious solution.  There can be no prejudice to the husband in making an order as proposed in his absence as he will have additional time with the children and they will be able to spend time with members of his family at that wedding.

5. I am satisfied it would be in the best interests of the children to make orders as proposed by the wife and independent children’s lawyer and I do so, as a second order made this day. 

I certify that the preceding 5 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Brown AM.

Associate

Date: 13 December 2007