Walter and Gill

[2012] FamCA 1001

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALTER & GILL [2012] FamCA 1001

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Final Consent

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Walter

RESPONDENT: Ms Gill

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Boughton Legal

FILE NUMBER: BRC 3163 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 23 November 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

HEARING DATE: 23 November 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr J. Selfridge

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: John Hawes & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms P. Kirkman-Scroope

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: McAlister & Cartmill

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Mr S.C.A. Middleton

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Boughton Legal

Orders

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT

1. Pursuant to Rule 10.17 of the Family Law Rules 2004, orders, declarations and notations be made in terms of the document titled “Minutes of Consent” sealed and attached hereto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. All extant applications be otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation

2. All subpoenaed documents be returned to the persons or institutions from which they emanated and all exhibits are returned to the person or persons who tendered the same.

3. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 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 these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Walter & Gill 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 3163 of 2011

Mr Walter

Applicant

And

Ms Gill

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter came before me for mention yesterday in circumstances where, at a call-over, it had been listed as a reserved matter for trial.  Unfortunately, due to a combination of circumstances, the Court was not able to facilitate the hearing of that trial. 

2. However, as was proper, in expectation of the trial proceeding, each of the parties and the independent children’s lawyer were represented by counsel, and a psychologist, Mr Campbell, who had been seeing the father, was also at court so as to give evidence.

3. The parties, sensibly and intelligently if I may say so, used the opportunity of them being present together with Mr Campbell and their legal advisers to undertake discussions in respect of the issues outstanding between them.  In that respect, the Court had before it as part of the evidence a family report prepared by Mr B and psychiatric reports prepared by Dr C in respect of each of the parties.

4. The issues as between the parties were, as it seems to me, well canvassed in those expert reports and are, in turn, well dealt with in the orders which the parties have been able to agree upon. 

5. Concerns about specific behaviours of the father insofar as they affect the children were the subject of affidavit evidence and also the subject of reference in each of the reports by Mr B and Dr C to which I have just referred.

6. Those matters give rise to the necessity to address the provisions of rule 10.15A. Annexed to the minutes of consent which each of the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer would have this court make is a form which complies with the provisions of that rule. 

7. In particular, as each of the forms signed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and each of the parties indicate, the issues to which that rule is directed are covered, as it were, by paragraphs 19 through 24 of the minutes of order which the parties would have me make. 

8. I am satisfied, as each of those forms indicate, that the requirements of that rule are met, and as that rule contemplates, allegations of the type to which the rule applies, insofar as they apply to this case, have been adequately and properly addressed in the orders which I am asked to make.

9. As I indicated to the parties at the outset yesterday, although I was not myself in a position to be able to hear the trial because of other trial commitments, I had nevertheless read the material.  I have now read the minutes of order that the parties are agreeable to making, which are also promoted by the independent children’s lawyer. 

10. Those orders seem to me to be a proper and adequate response to the material before the Court, and in my view, they are orders which represent parenting orders in the best interests of D, born in July 2002, and E, born in November 2003.

11. In those circumstances, I make orders by consent in accordance with the minutes of order signed by each of the parties and the independent children’s lawyer, initialled by me and placed with the papers.

12. I will, in addition, make the usual orders removing this matter from the list of pending cases and return of documents produced pursuant to subpoena to the owners of those documents. 

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy delivered on 23 November 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  30 November 2012