Strahan and Strahan (No. 2)

[2009] FamCA 360

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN (NO. 2) [2009] FamCA 360

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management

APPLICANT: Ms Strahan

RESPONDENT: Mr Strahan

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ann Bills

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 4 May 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 4 May 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr G Holland

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Pederick Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr N Ackman QC

with Mr P Harris

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Robinson & Mason

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

COUNSEL:

Mrs V West

with Ms A Bills

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

SOLICITOR:

Ann Bills & Associates

Orders

1. That paragraph 2 of the Further Amended Application in a Case filed by the wife on 15 January 2009 and the Response filed by the husband on 25 February 2009 in so far as it deals with that paragraph be adjourned for hearing to 10:00am on 19 May 2009.

2. That all other Applications and Responses be further adjourned for mention to 10:00am on 19 May 2009.

3. That leave be granted to both parties to file any further affidavit in support their respective Applications or Responses in relation to orders sought as to the husband spending time with the child, such affidavits to be filed and served by 4:00pm on 18 May 2009.

4. That the question of both parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs be reserved to the adjourned hearing.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

MS STRAHAN

Applicant

And

MR STRAHAN

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. When this matter was last before me on this issue on 8 April the wife applied for an adjournment of the applications that were due to be heard that day and the next, not only those that were financially related but also as they related to the child.  I determined to adjourn those applications which the wife had brought but I determined to proceed with the application in relation to the child and I made orders on that day setting up three occasions for time to be spent by the child with the husband namely 12 April, 16 May and 17 May.  As I have been informed the time due to be spent on 12 April did not occur and there is a dispute as to the reasons for that.  We still have 16 and 17 May in place though. 

2. I indicated on 8 April that I was not prepared to make any order beyond those dates because I wanted to see how the initial dates panned out and obviously I am concerned that there was no time spent on 12 April.  I look forward still with optimism to the child spending time with the husband on 16 and 17 May but on 8 April I did indicate that if problems developed that I would be listing this matter on 19 May for further consideration of the competing applications in relation to the child. 

3. The husband’s counsel wishes to pursue that course, as does the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  Mr Holland has said that his client expects to comply with the order for 16 and 17 May but in terms of the matter being listed on 19 May his client is still awaiting a judgment from the Full Court in relation to funding and he has been candid in saying that nothing has changed in relation to his client’s funding between the last occasion and now. 

4. I do not need to go over what occurred in that regard on that occasion, but Mr Holland’s position is that there is no funding for a substantial argument about any issue at this point including in relation to the child.  However, that does not change my view about the matter.  I determined to proceed with that matter on the last occasion and I consider that in the interests of the child it is necessary for me to further list for hearing the competing applications. 

5. Thus, I do propose to list this issue for further consideration on 19 May. Hopefully it becomes unnecessary either because time spent does occur on the previous weekend or separate to that the parties are able to reach agreement about an ongoing arrangement.  If that does not occur though then I will deal with the applications in the best way that I can and obviously I need to give leave to the parties to file any further affidavit material that they wish to in support of their respective applications and responses on this issue.

6. Separate to that I need to have a date to work towards for all other outstanding matters.

I certify that the preceding 6 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 4 May 2009.

Associate