TOUREL & REIDEL

[2017] FamCA 1175

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TOUREL & REIDEL [2017] FamCA 1175

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim – Where the father seeks to have the child’s surname changed – Where the matter has already been listed for a final hearing

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Tourel

RESPONDENT: Ms Reidel

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Jan Kingston

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1136 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 27 November 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 27 November 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Byrne

WP Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Kingston

Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

1. That until further order and notwithstanding the equal shared parental responsibility order made by consent on a final basis before Federal Magistrate Baumann on 6 August 2008 and amended on 19 August 2008, the father has the right to swear a Statutory Declaration and provide it to the principal of the H High School as soon as possible in which he requests the school use the name, B Tourel, in all respects in connection with the enrolment and attendance by the child at the school from the commencement of the New South Wales school year in 2018, but to be clear, the father is not authorised to go to the Queensland Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages to seek a formal change of registration of the child’s surname.

2. The father is authorised to show a copy of this Order to Ms J, the principal of the High School to demonstrate to her that he has the authority of this Court on an interim basis until further order to have the child known by the surname Tourel in connection with his attendance at that school.

3. The balance of the father’s Application in a Case filed 23 October 2017 is adjourned to be determined by the Trial Judge at the final hearing of this parenting orders dispute.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Tourel & Reidel has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1136 of 2007

Mr Tourel

Applicant

And

Ms Reidel

Respondent

And

Independent Children's Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before me today, in this matter is an application by the father in respect of the child, B born in 2005.  The father seeks a number of orders in respect of the parenting of the child by way of an Application in a Case that he filed earlier this year.  The Application in a Case was seeking interim parenting orders.  After he filed the Application in a Case and before the matter came on for hearing today the matter was actually listed for a three day final hearing of all the outstanding parenting issues before Justice Carew in late February 2018. 

2. The matter came on before me this morning, and from memory, the two issues really that the father is seeking to have dealt with today were in relation to the child’s name, being changed at the formal level, that is at the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Queensland from the hyphenated name “Reidel-Tourel” to simply “Tourel” so that he could attend school in the new year at a new high school in New South Wales and only be known there by the name Tourel.  He also sought an order that would permit him to apply for a passport for the child in the name of Tourel to allow him to travel out of the country in the future in and part of sports teams that are arranged to travel overseas through an outstanding or an advanced sports academy that he participates in in the K Region.

3. When the matter was called this morning, the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted the matter should be adjourned to the trial because these matters should be part of the final hearing. The father’s solicitor made submissions that the matter really needs to be heard today because the child is about to start school, the trial is not until after he is at school so any delay or adjournment would defeat the application in itself.  The mother opposes it and says it should not happen.  That is her position, interim and final, as I understand it.

4. The mother, of course, puts in issue a lot of the evidence the father has deposed to in support of his application for the child’s name to be changed.  In essence, and briefly, the father says the child gets teased because his name is Reidel-Tourel.  The child complains about it, the child gets bullied about it and it is causing him stress and anxiety.  The mother says she doubts the veracity of that evidence, in other words, she thinks the father is making it up or somehow he is not dealing with it with the child in the appropriate sense. 

5. What I then did was cause the Independent Children’s Lawyer to call the principal of the high school the child attends.  This was because the Court was told, in the father’s affidavit evidence he says, that the child has to be enrolled in the name he is registered in.  I expressed some initial doubts or lack of certainty that that was in fact correct based on many years of experience in this place.  So I caused the Independent Children’s Lawyer to call the principal of the school that the child is going to attend to see if that was correct, so that an alternative position could be put in place on a temporary basis to protect the child pending the final determination of the issues as early as February next year. 

6. Ms J was sworn in and she gave some evidence in answer to some questions by me. The parties were then offered the opportunity to ask her questions but did not take it up.  She is the Principal of H High School in L Town where the child is going to attend, and she told the Court that if the parent with whom the child resides swears a statutory declaration requesting that the school use a different name to the one that is registered at the Births Deaths and Marriages Registry, they will respect that and, of course, she indicated that if it has the backing of a Court Order the respect would be there as well and it would be honoured.

7. Accordingly, I consider that it is in the best interests of this young adolescent that he be able to start attending his new high school in the new year in circumstances where all of his peers that he starts attending that school with know him by the name of Tourel, such that it will not attract any form of teasing or derision.  My order will only be temporary such that the matter can be fully aired by the parents in front of the trial judge, Justice Carew, when she hears the matter.

8. My order will not extend as far as allowing or permitting the father to formally go and lawfully change the wording of the child’s name with the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages so the mother can be reassured that the child’s legal name is still Reidel-Tourel.  Whether her Honour Justice Carew determines that the father be allowed to formally change that or whether he just simply be allowed to continue to have the child attend at the school with the name Tourel, but not formally change his name, will be a matter, of course, to be argued before her Honour and dealt with by her on the evidence she hears.

9. Accordingly I make these orders.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 27 November 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  11 January 2019