Vermeer & Vermeer (No 2)

[2018] FamCA 926

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VERMEER & VERMEER (NO 2) [2018] FamCA 926

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where allegations of social security fraud by the mother are raised by the father in circumstances where Commonwealth authorities are undertaking investigations - Whether the prejudicial value of questions put in cross-examination is so great as to overcome any probative value – Questions not allowed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Vermeer

RESPONDENT: Ms Vermeer

FILE NUMBER: DGC 486 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 17 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 17 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Hall

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Perry Weston Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Devries

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Erol Cinar Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Goddard

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Taft Lawyers

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Vermeer & Vermeer (No.3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: DGC 486 of 2014

Mr Vermeer

Applicant

And

Ms Vermeer

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There is a line of questioning in relation to allegations that Ms Vermeer (‘the mother’) may have been receiving Centrelink benefits from the Government where she may or may not have been entitled to receive those Centrelink benefits between 2007 and 2013.  That question was in place when final orders were made in 2016 which provided, amongst other things, two orders.  First, there was an order that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, subject to some provisions for notification.

2. Second, that the children live with the mother, but spend significant and substantial time with the father.  The mother has given evidence, and it seems not in dispute, that she is subject to some investigation by the Commonwealth authorities in relation to that.  The father, through his counsel, has conceded that the Director of Public Prosecution has sought his assistance in this matter.  I have to consider whether the probative value of that material in this case, having regard to that background, is greater than the prejudice which could impact upon this witness.

3. It falls into two areas, it seems to me.  First, whether the parties had some forms of separation between 2007 and 2013, which in the circumstances of this case would in my view have little impact on the outcome of these proceedings.  Second, whether the mother may or may not have stolen money from the Commonwealth, which is the thrust of the matter.  It seems to me that the prejudicial value of those questions is so great as to overcome any probative value that it may have and as such, I will not allow those questions.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 17 October 2018.

Associate:     

Date:  15 November 2018