TIMMINS & ZADRIMA

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TIMMINS & ZADRIMA [2020] FamCA 756

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the mother has been a sporadic participant in the proceedings – Where the mother appeared at trial and sought an adjournment for a period of six months – Where the mother did not make a reasonable attempt to be ready for trial – Where the child’s best interests were not served by an adjournment – Where granting an adjournment would not allow the determination of the litigation in a timely and affordable way – Where the mother would be unable to meet the father’s costs thrown away by any adjournment – Adjournment refused.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom the child shall live and spend time – Best interests – Where the mother conceded the child’s residence to the father – Where the father sought orders to positively preclude any future interaction between the child and the mother – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed the child’s time with the mother be limited to only two visits per year – Where the mother sought a reinstatement of earlier orders so the child could spend substantial time and communicate with her – Where the Family Consultant recommended the child continue to live with the father and have no contact or communication with the mother – Consideration of the primary and relevant factors under s 60CC(2) and s 60CC(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether the child has a meaningful relationship with the mother from which the child derives benefit – Where the father perceives the promotion of the child’s relationship with the mother is at the cost of the child’s relationship with him – Where the child cannot maintain meaningful engagement with both parents – Where the child has rarely spent time with the mother in the past 18 months, but each occasion has stimulated an adverse reaction in the child – Where the child suffers a developmental disability, which makes her expressed views vulnerable to manipulation – Where the child’s views are given no weight – Where the available evidence reflects poorly upon the mother’s parenting capacity, her attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal is rejected for lack of solid evidentiary foundation – Ordered the child continue to live with the father – No prescriptive orders requiring the child to spend time or communicate with the mother – Where such time or communication is left to the father as an incident of his sole parental responsibility.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Parenting responsibility – Where the mother conceded parental responsibility for the child to the father – Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted – Where the child will continue to live with the father – Ordered the father shall have sole parental responsibility for the child.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61B, 61DA, 64B,…