Tennant and Peters

[2017] FCCA 1651

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TENNANT & PETERS [2017] FCCA 1651

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – whether the children should be placed on the airport watch list – whether the maternal grandfather should be restricted to supervised contact – self-represented litigant filed no evidence.

Applicant: MR TENNANT

Respondent: MS PETERS

File Number: SYC 1714 of 2016

Judgment of: Chief Judge Pascoe

Hearing date: 14 July 2017

Date of Last Submission: 14 July 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 July 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Legal Aid NSW

The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

1. Until further Order, the applicant, the respondent, the children (namely X born (omitted) 2005 and Y born (omitted) 2004 (“the Children”)) by themselves, and the servants or the agents of the applicant or the respondent are restrained from removing or attempting to remove the Children, from the Commonwealth of Australia.

2. The Marshal of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, all officers of the Australian Federal Police, and all officers of the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested to give effect to these Orders and to take all necessary steps to restrain an relevant party from removing or attempting to remove the Children from the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. Until further order, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police take all necessary steps to immediately place the Children’s names on the airport watch list, also known as the PACE Alert system, at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia.

4. The Australian Federal Police maintain an airport watch of the Children on all flights leaving any international airport in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia.

5. The Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of, and give effect to, these Orders.

6. Until further Order, Orders 1 to 5 of the Orders herein are to remain in place until each of the Children respectively reach the age of 18 years.

7. There be no Order as to the maternal grandfather.

   By the Court

   CHIEF JUDGE PASCOE

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 1714 of 2016

MR TENNANT

Applicant

And

MS PETERS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex Tempore

1. These reasons for judgment were orally delivered. 

Introduction

1. In this matter, most issues in contention were settled by consent between the parties and Consent Orders were made by Her Honour Judge Boyle on 15 February 2017.

2. Two issues remained to be determined. Firstly, whether X born (omitted) 2005 and Y born (omitted) 2004 (“the Children”) should be removed from an airport watch list; and secondly, whether the maternal grandfather should be restricted to supervised contact with the Children.

3. I note that the parties have agreed to equal shared parental responsibility for the Children, both of whom live with their Mother and spend substantial and significant time with their Father.

4. There was no evidence before the Court to indicate other than that this arrangement was appropriately working, although there is clearly a high level of conflict between the parties.

The Airport Watch List

1. The Father sought Orders for the Children to be placed on the Airport Watch List because of his fear that the Mother may take the Children to (country omitted), where, as the Father deposed, she had property and family.

2. I note that although the Mother denied that she had property and family with whom she had contact from the Bar table, she did not file any affidavit or evidentiary material despite having significant time to do so.

3. The Father deposed that the Children have, or have had, (country omitted) Passports respectively issued in their names.

4. The Mother submitted, again without evidence to support her claims, that the Children did not have (country omitted) passports and that the Children’s Australian Passports have now expired. Regarding the Australian Passport issue, this detail would have been easily solved by the production of the valid or expired Passports.

5. On the basis of the evidence filed, such as it is, and the difficulties and expense the Father would face if the Children were removed to (country omitted), which could result in a permanent loss of contact between the Children and their Father, I am of the view that it is in the best interest of the Children that they be placed on the Airport Watch List until they respectively reach the age of 18 years.

6. If the parents agree that overseas travel is appropriate then it is not difficult for the Children’s names to be removed so that their travel can be facilitated.

The Maternal Grandfather

1. The solicitor for the Father advised the Court that the Father did not rely on paragraphs 22 of the Father’s affidavit sworn 23 June 2017 and paragraph 96 of the Father’s affidavit sworn 15 June 2016.

2. This significantly lessened the evidence that the Court could use to make an Order in favour of the Father as applied for. As a result the only evidence before the Court was that the maternal grandfather had been detained for a prima facie low-level drink driving offence that was later revealed not to be an offence, and that he had historically been observed, seemingly, in a state of intoxication inside his own home.

3. There was no evidence of any real or perceived danger or risk of harm to the Children, or indeed, to anyone.

4. I note that the maternal grandfather lives in close proximity to the Children, although there was no evidence as to his role in their lives.

5. On the basis of the evidence I was asked to consider, I find that the maternal grandfather does not pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the Children and should not be restricted to supervised time with the Children.

6. As such, I make no Order at all with regard to the maternal grandfather.

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Pascoe

Associate: 

Date:  17 July 2017