Tansley and Bamford

[2015] FCCA 3494

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TANSLEY & BAMFORD [2015] FCCA 3494

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim parenting – whether pending further order father's time with a child needs to be supervised or not – where the child has special needs – where mother raises concerns raised in proceedings involving father and children of another relationship – where supervised time ordered – where matter transferred to Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Parramatta.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC(2)(a)-(b), 69ZX(3)

Applicant: MR TANSLEY

Respondent: MS BAMFORD

File Number: WOC 1101 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing date: 9 December 2015

Date of Last Submission: 9 December 2015

Delivered at: Wollongong

Delivered on: 9 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Legal Aid NSW on a duty basis

ORDERS

1. Pending further order, the Child X (born (omitted) 2008) live with the Mother.

2. Pending further order, the Child spend time with the Father as agreed, but failing agreement, each Sunday from 11:00am until 6:00pm, with such time to be supervised by the service known as Connecting Families, or any such service or supervisor as the parents may otherwise agree, and with the costs of such supervised time to be borne by the Father in the first instance.

3. The parents forthwith do all things necessary to facilitate the commencement of supervised time with Connecting Families.

4. Pursuant to section 68L of the Family Law Act 1975, an Independent Children’s Lawyer be appointed for the Child X (born (omitted) 2008) and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales is requested to provide such representation.

5. The parties are to provide to the Legal Aid Commission at PO Box K847, HAYMARKET NSW 1238 or DX 5 SYDNEY forthwith all documents thus far filed by them in these proceedings together with all existing orders and copies of any relevant reports.

6. The proceedings are transferred to the Federal Circuit Court, Parramatta Registry, to be listed for directions only on 1 February 2016 at 9:30am before Judge Dunkley.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

WOC 1101 of 2015

MR TANSLEY

Applicant

And

MS BAMFORD

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I provide the following ex tempore reasons.  The matter comes before me in today’s duty list.  It relates to a child, X, born (omitted) 2008.  X will shortly turn 7 years old.  His father is the Applicant and his mother is the Respondent.  Both parents represented themselves today.  At a later stage, the Respondent Mother was assisted by Ms Temelkovska on a duty basis.  What is clear, not just from the manner in which both parents presented themselves, but also from material that is before the Court, is that they are both highly intelligent and articulate people. 

2. The matter comes before the Court on the Father’s application, indeed an Application in a Case to bring forward the first return date of a substantive application.  The concern that he has is that he has not spent time with his son for several months.  The Response that the Mother filed proposed an order for X to spend time with his father each Sunday from 11:00am until 6:00pm.  Initially, her proposal did not include a requirement for supervision but after obtaining assistance from the duty lawyer, the Mother changed her position. 

3. What became apparent during the course of submissions is that the Father, the Applicant in these proceedings, was also the Applicant in similar proceedings that came before me earlier this year and which resulted in the Court making an order for him to spend supervised time with his children pending the transfer of this matter to the Court at Parramatta.  One of the concerns raised by the Mother is about the potential risk to the child X, who it is agreed has special needs.  The second concern is violence, which she contends has occurred in the Father’s relationship with the mother to his other two younger children, i.e. a later relationship. 

4. It is not possible, of course, in the present context to make anything about the allegation or the concern. What is significant is that it was an issue in the other matter before the Court ((omitted)), and that is a matter that the Court is entitled to inform itself about: s.69ZX(3). It is equally important for X to resume his relationship with his father, a matter that the Mother herself contends for.

5. In the circumstances, making an order for supervised time provides that opportunity for X to resume his relationship with his father but address any concerns about risk to X: ss.60CC(2)(a)-(b). Of course, the nature of the risk cannot be identified precisely at this stage. The Court is satisfied, however, that there is one and that in the interests of resuming the relationship, the least detrimental option would be to order supervision. What is clear is that, without supervision, the Mother would strongly oppose the Orders sought today. These are Interim Orders and can be reviewed in due course.

6. The Court notes from its records that the Father’s interim application against the Mother of his other children is listed before His Honour Judge Dunkley on 1 February 2016.  If His Honour consents to the mention of this matter on that date, it may well be that he will choose to deal with both these cases concurrently.  This means, in any event, that the period of time when the Father will have to have supervised time is limited. 

7. The Father also sought a watch list order in relation to the child.  Looking at the evidence objectively, there is no risk that is apparent.  The Mother has indicated that she does not have immediate plans to travel overseas.  That is a matter that can be agitated elsewhere.  Whilst the order I have made provides for contact between 11:00am and 6:00pm, given that the parties will be using Connecting Families, the precise times and the length is something that can be organised between them. 

8. The issue of cost needs to be dealt with.  The cost in the first instance is to be borne by the Father.  The parents are encouraged to make arrangements for Connecting Families to be involved in this matter as soon as possible so that X can resume a relationship with his father.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Altobelli

Date:         7 January 2016