Turney and Turney

In the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Justice Cronin presided over proceedings between Mrs Turney (Applicant) and Mr Turney (Respondent), concerning applications for final orders in children and property matters. The dispute involved the welfare and living arrangements of the parties' two children, A and C, and the division and sale of jointly owned properties. The proceedings had a complex history, with previous orders made by Kay J and Bennett J, and the intervention of the Department of Human Services.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to address the living arrangements for the children, considering the husband's recent abandonment of the children and his expressed desire for no further contact, including a request for DNA testing. Secondly, the court had to consider the husband's failure to comply with previous orders, including the filing of an affidavit regarding property debt and attendance for a family report. Thirdly, the court was tasked with making orders regarding the sale of two properties, L and H, and the management of rental income and mortgage obligations. Finally, the court had to decide on the appropriate procedural steps, including the withdrawal of the husband's legal representation and the future conduct of the proceedings.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the husband's behaviour was "bizarre" and that he had effectively abandoned the children and the property. Given the husband's non-compliance with court orders and his failure to appear or provide instructions, the court made orders for the children to live with the wife, with a condition that if the husband failed to make any application relating to children's matters by a specified date, these orders would become final. The court also discharged previous restrictive orders concerning the wife's alcohol consumption and movements, as they were no longer deemed necessary given the husband's lack of involvement. Regarding the property, the court varied previous orders to give the wife the sole responsibility for determining the reserve price and sale terms for properties L and H, to facilitate their sale and satisfy mortgage obligations, noting the urgency due to potential mortgagee action. The court adjourned outstanding applications to a future date, providing the husband with an opportunity to participate, but warned that if he failed to do so, the property proceedings could proceed undefended.