Weeramantry and Bendik (No. 2)

[2018] FamCA 167

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WEERAMANTRY & BENDIK (NO. 2) [2018] FamCA 167

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where parties make joint application to vary an interim order under the slip rule – Where parties are not in agreement as to how the orders should be amended – Court allowed parties to make written submissions – Orders made varying interim orders under the slip rule

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Weeramantry

RESPONDENT: Mr Bendik

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6703 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 19 February 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Hobart

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 19 February 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Picker

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Edwards Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Wearn

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Reid Family Lawyers

Orders

1. Order 7(c) made 12 January 2018 be varied under the Slip Rule to provide ‘three (3) weeks over the December/January school holiday period’.

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 Weeramantry & Bendik (No. 2) 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 HOBART

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6703 of 2017

Ms Weeramantry

Applicant

And

Mr Bendik

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Ms Weeramantry (‘the mother’) and Mr Bendik (‘the father’) are the parents of three children, C (aged 10), B (aged nine) and D (aged six).

2. This matter came before me as an interim parenting dispute in December 2017.  It involved a dispute between the parents who had been living in China.  The mother was to move for her employment to Country M and the father had returned to Australia.

3. The father’s position is that the children should live with him in Australia as he was the primary carer.  The mother’s position was that the children should live with her in Country M.

4. Reasons were given and orders were made by me on 12 January 2018.

5. Part of the evidence was that there was a three week break over the Christmas/new year period.  Both parties contended that the particular order made by me ‘that the children spend time with the father for three weeks over the January school holiday period’ was unworkable.

6. The reason for this was that the school holiday period was over the December/January school holiday period.  Each of the parties wished to make submissions as to the order.  The mother was concerned that if this interim order continued she would not have the children over the Christmas period nor would the child B be with her given his birthday falls during that time.

7. Rather than put the parties to the expense of having lawyers attend court and make submissions, I permitted them to make short written submissions of which I have had regard.

8. This is an interim matter and the parenting arrangements will either be settled by the parents or determined by a court in the future at some stage.

9. It was clear that I had intended that the children spend the Christmas/New Year period (for three weeks) with the father.  Accordingly, I have amended the order under the Slip Rule to that effect.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 19 February2018.

Associate:     

Date:              7 March 2018