STOREY & MARTEL

In the matter of *Storey & Martel*, heard before Tree J, the dispute concerned interim parenting orders. The mother, Ms Martel, sought sole parental responsibility for the child, B, born in 2015. The father, Mr Storey, who was remanded in custody at the C Correctional Centre, sought equal shared parental responsibility and interim orders requiring the mother to relocate to an area near him. The mother alleged that the father had sexually abused the child, and the father faced charges for sexual assaults against the mother and another person, with a criminal history.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the father's oral application for an adjournment of the proceedings until his criminal proceedings concluded. Additionally, the court had to consider the parenting arrangements for the child, specifically whether to grant the mother sole parental responsibility or to make orders for equal shared parental responsibility, and whether to order the mother to relocate. The court also needed to address the issue of service of documents upon the father.

Tree J dismissed the father's application for a six-month adjournment, finding that determining the mother's application would not deprive the father of a real opportunity to litigate his rights and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. The court noted that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply in these circumstances, particularly given the father's current incarceration and the serious allegations made against him. The court deemed service of documents upon the C Correctional Centre to be good service upon the father.

Consequently, the court ordered that the mother, Ms Martel, have sole parental responsibility for the child B. The father's application for an adjournment was dismissed, and service upon the correctional centre was deemed valid.