Van Diemen and Van Diemen (No 2)

[2013] FamCA 774

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VAN DIEMEN & VAN DIEMEN (NO 2) [2013] FamCA 774

FAMILY LAW – RULING

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Van Diemen

RESPONDENT: Mr Van Diemen

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8968 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 17 September 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 17 September 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Dunlop

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: David Stagg Tonkin & Company

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Arnold

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Agricola Wunderlich &

Associates

Orders

1. That all outstanding applications are adjourned part-heard to 10.00am on 28 October 2013.

2. That each party do all acts and things necessary to register with B Contact Service for their supervised contact program on the proviso that no action is taken by the said B Contact Service until further order of the Court including in relation to any interviews with the children and/or the parties

3. That the wife have leave to issue such subpoenae as she is so advised to Optus and to Ms C.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Van Diemen & Van Diemen 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 8968 of 2011

Ms Van Diemen

Applicant

And

Mr Van Diemen

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

RULING

1. This is an application made orally, supported by the independent children's lawyer that the parties, after some seven or eight days of a trial relating to parenting issues, register for B Contact Service on the basis that one way or the other these children would have to go through some sort of process of supervision to re-establish a relationship with their father, if the court finds there is no unacceptable risk.

2. There seems to me to be no prejudice to any party by that registration, bearing in mind that the court will also be ordering that the B Contact Service is not to action anything, including interviews, but rather just to put the parties’ names down.  No further action is to be taken until such time as the court orders otherwise.

3. Orders should therefore be made in those terms.  Otherwise, the matter is adjourned to 10 am on 28 October.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 17 September 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  10 October 2013