Vaziri & Meer
[2023] FedCFamC1F 271
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Vaziri & Meer [2023] FedCFamC1F 271
File number: PAC 434 of 2023 Judgment of: REES J Date of judgment: 14 April 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility for the child – Where a medical issue has arisen relating to the child which requires the consent of both parents – Where the mother has attempted to serve the application to the father personally without success – Where the father has been served by email and SMS message – Where the father has chosen not to participate – Where it is necessary for the mother to have sole parental responsibility in order to allow the child to undergo treatment – Orders made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility. Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 15 Date of hearing: 14 April 2023 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Yu Solicitor for the Applicant: FB Legal Respondent: No appearance ORDERS
PAC 434 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS VAZIRI
Applicant
AND: MR MEER
Respondent
order made by:
REES J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 APRIL 2023
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That Ms Vaziri have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2008.
2.That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those particulars are included in these Orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Vaziri & Meer has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REES J:
Ms Vaziri (“the mother”) and Mr Meer (“the father”) are the separated parents of two children, one of whom is now an adult and X born 2008 (“the child”).
The parents, then living in New Zealand, were divorced in 2012. Parenting orders were made in New Zealand in 2014.
In 2019, the mother and the children moved to live in Australia. The father remained living in New Zealand and he has since had no contact with the children.
A medical issue has arisen in relation to the child which requires the parents to consent to treatment.
The father has been asked to consent but has not formally responded, although he has indicated his consent in an email.
The mother has filed an application seeking an order that she have sole parental responsibility for the child.
Orders were made on 15 February 2023 for service. Those orders required that the father be personally served and that, in addition, he be served by email at a nominated email address and by SMS message.
The mother served the application upon the father by SMS and by email. She has been unable to serve the father personally in New Zealand, despite the attempts of a process server.
On 7 March 2023, orders were made referring the proceedings for the allocation of a hearing date and directing that the father be served with a copy of that order by email and SMS.
On 21 March 2023, I listed the matter for hearing before me on 14 April 2023, and directed that the father be served with a copy of that order by email.
I am satisfied that the orders were served upon the father.
On 27 March 2023, the father wrote an email to the mother stating,
I don’t have time to read this emails or whatever you sent to me. So please do not waist my time or even [the child’s] time. I don’t understand why you waist time. If she needs do surgery let her to do, why are you forcing me for sigh, I can tell you by this email again let her do whatever she wants for her surgery and do not contact me again!
(As per the original)
I am satisfied that the father has notice of these proceedings and that the matter is listed before me and that he has chosen not to participate.
It is necessary that the mother have authority to consent to treatment that is required for the child’s wellbeing.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.
I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees. Associate:
Dated: 14 April 2023
0
0
0