TSIKLIDIS & TSIKLIDIS

[2015] FamCA 279

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TSIKLIDIS & TSIKLIDIS [2015] FamCA 279

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application filed by father seeking orders to enable him to take the children to school – application dismissed – liberty to restore before the Court on 48 hours notice

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent Orders – Proceedings adjourned to a fixed date for the making of consent orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Tsiklidis

RESPONDENT: Ms Tsiklidis

FILE NUMBER: HBC 391 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 2 March 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Hobart

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 2 March 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Di Giovanni

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Wallace Wilkinson & Webster

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Mooney

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Westminster Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

1. The property proceedings be adjourned for the making of consent orders to 4.30pm Wednesday 11 March 2015 at Melbourne.

2. Leave be given for the wife and her legal representative to attend by telephone by dialling …

IT IS DIRECTED

1. The signed minute of the consent order be forwarded by email to my administrative associate by 2.00pm on Wednesday 11 March 2015, together with a word version of the minute of order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. The children B, C and D attend therapeutic counselling with Ms E psychologist, or such other psychologist agreed between the parties as directed by Ms E or any other agreed psychologist, subject to:-

   (a)the parties contributing equally to the cost of the therapeutic counselling;

   (b)the psychologist provide such report as the psychologist is satisfied as would not interfere with the therapeutic treatment of the children; and

   (c)no subpoena to issue to the psychologist without leave of the court.

THE COURT NOTES

1. The parents agree there ought not to be an order made requiring the children to be taken to school by the father given the views of the children and despite the father’s willingness and desire to do so.  This is to enable a therapeutic treatment to be undertaken by a psychologist.

2. If the psychologist recommends that the father take or return the children to or from school, each party will endeavour to accommodate that recommendation.

3. It is intended that this order be made available to the psychologist.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. The application in a case filed 25 February 2015 is dismissed AND IT IS NOTED the application was not heard on its merits and given the reasons I have made today this ought not, in the absence of a general application for costs, be the subject of a costs application.

2. Leave be given for the parties to have the matter relisted before me on the giving of forty eight (48) hours notice and if I am not reasonably available in the months of June and July 2015 request that Her Honour Justice Bennett deal with the matter in my absence.

3. These proceedings be adjourned for mention and directions before me at 9.30am on 5 August 2015 at Hobart.

4. Leave be given for the solicitor for the father to attend by telephone by dialling …

IT IS CERTIFIED

1. Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: HBC 391 of 2013

Mr Tsiklidis

Applicant

And

Ms Tsiklidis

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The parents in this case have been involved in litigation over a long period of time.  From what I have read of the affidavits so far, the children are, as it were, at some levels, collateral damage to the conflict that exists between these parents.  The parties, to their credit, have resolved many of the issues between them in recent weeks.

2. Today, the father seeks an order to ensure that the permission for him to take their eldest child to school of a morning is not in any way interfered with.  The mother asserts that she does not object to the father taking this child to school, but wants there to be no order, given the age of the child and her views as to the nature of the relationship.

3. The distrust between these parents is palpable.  The father does not trust the mother to support his role as father of these three children.  He asserts that the change of attitude of the younger children, in terms of him taking them to school, was brought about by the mother.  I make no finding in this respect.

4. The mother does not trust the father and says that she has concerns about him at times not listening to the views of the children.  What is clear, apart from this sense of mutual distrust that comes through from the parties, is that both of them care deeply for these children, otherwise, they would not be here today and would not be spending the resources that they are on these battles.  Perhaps that is added to by the sensible approach they have taken, given the report of the Family Consultant.

5. My task, however, is not to do anything about the rights of the parents.  My task is to concern myself with the rights of the children.  I do not intend to determine that order today.  I intend to dismiss the application and note that it was not heard on the merits.  I intend to give leave for the parties to have the matter restored before me on giving 48 hours notice and I will have discussions with her Honour Bennett J so that when I am away in June and July, that that 48 hour notice has some significant meaning and is not lost as a consequence of my travels or my absence.

6. Given that I do not intend to make the order, I will make the notation to which I referred to earlier and I will otherwise dismiss the application in a case on that basis.  I also make it clear that there ought not to be an order for costs arising out of that dismissal, subject to any overall application for costs at the end of the hearing.

7. The Court notes that the parents agree that there ought not to be an order made requiring the children to be taken to school by the father, given the views of the children and despite the father’s willingness and desire to do so.  This is to enable a therapeutic treatment to be undertaken by a psychologist.

8. The Court further notes that if the psychologist recommends that the father takes or for that matter returns the children to or from school, that each party will endeavour to accommodate that recommendation.  It is intended that this order be made available to the psychologist.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 2 March 2015.

Associate:     

Date:              2 March 2015