Uysal and Mardine

[2014] FCCA 488

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

UYSAL & MARDINE [2014] FCCA 488

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – stay of orders.

Legislation: 

Family Law Act 1975

Nineth & Nineth [2011] FamCA 128
Aldridge & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 106

Applicant: MR UYSAL

Respondent: MS MARDINE

File Number: DGC 37 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Small

Hearing date: 7 March 2014

Date of Last Submission: 7 March 2014

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 7 March 2014

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Harris

Solicitors for the Respondent: Melbourne Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application filed 6 March 2014 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for the Stay of Orders made 10 February 2014 is dismissed. 

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

DGC 37 of 2013

MR UYSAL

Applicant

And

MS MARDINE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The matter of Uysal and Mardine comes before me today for hearing of the father’s Application in a Case to stay the orders that I made in this matter on 10 February 2014.  Those orders, and the reasons that accompanied them, were delivered after a four and a half day trial, essentially held in two blocks over a three and a half week period ending on 27 November 2013.

2. I won’t read all of those orders into the record but, in essence, what they provided was that the mother would have sole parental responsibility for the parties’ child, [X], who was born [in] 2012, that [X] would live with the mother, and that the mother would be permitted to remove [X] from Australia and take him to live with her in the United States which is her home country.  In fact, the orders say that she can take him to live anywhere she chooses, after she has removed him from Australia.

3. That’s the essence of the orders that were made, and further orders were made allowing for the father to spend time with [X] in the United States on a fairly restricted basis, it’s true.  On, I think, three times a year for no more than two weeks at a time, and that time is to be supervised.   However, the issue of supervision over the long term was left to the mother’s discretion as she would have sole parental responsibility for [X]. 

4. As I’ve said, those orders were handed down and reasons given, and I think the reasons ran to something like 79 pages.  And it was all delivered on 10 February 2014.  The orders provided that the mother was permitted to remove [X] from Australia on or after 12 March 2014, which was 30 days after the date the orders were made. 

5. The father filed a Notice of Appeal on 5 March 2014, together with an Application in a Case for a stay of those orders, and a supporting Affidavit.  The Notice of Appeal states that…