WILDE & WILDE

[2016] FCCA 944

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILDE & WILDE [2016] FCCA 944

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting orders – Rice v Asplund issue – whether Orders for unaccompanied travel should be revisited – evidence about changed circumstances – where the Court has concerns about appropriateness of ongoing Orders.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975

Carriel & Lendrum (2015) FLC 93-640
CDW & LVE [2015] WASCA 247
Marsden & Winch (2009) 42 Fam LR 1
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93-363
Walter & Walter [2016] FamCAFC 56

Applicant: MS WILDE

Respondent: MR WILDE

File Number: SYC 1007 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing date: 7 April 2016

Date of Last Submission: 7 April 2016

Delivered at: Wollongong

Delivered on: 11 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Lukes Law

Solicitors for the Respondent: Watson & Watson Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The Father’s Application for dismissal pursuant to Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725is dismissed.

2. The matter be adjourned to 13 July 2016 at 9:30am for Mention.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wilde & Wilde is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

SYC 1007 of 2012

MS WILDE

Applicant

And

MR WILDE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These Reasons for Judgment explain the Orders that the Court has made in relation to the child, X, born (omitted) 2007 (‘the child’).  X is 8 years old.  His parents commenced litigation about him in 2012 and, indeed, the present issue before the Court is whether the parents should be allowed to litigate further.  X’s mother is the Applicant and his father is the Respondent. 

Background

1. On 19 October 2015 the Mother filed her present Application seeking to vary the existing Orders in relation to X, which were made as Final Orders, and by consent, on 27 September 2012.  By way of his Response filed 4 December 2012, the Father seeks Orders dismissing the Mother’s Application.  The present matter is what is commonly known as a Rice & Asplund application.  The Court has to decide whether the Mother should be permitted to continue with her proceedings, or whether they should, in effect, be summarily dismissed. 

2. By way of background, the Father is 49 years old and currently lives and works in (country omitted).  The Mother is 49 years old and lives in the (omitted) region of New South Wales.  They commenced cohabitation in 2003, married in 2005, and separated in January 2011.  X and his mother returned to Australia in February 2011.  The first set of proceedings in relation to X commenced in 2012 in the Family Court of Australia at Sydney.  Final orders were made by consent both in relation to property and parenting matters on 27 September 2012. 

3. The parameters of the present dispute are defined by reference to the precise Orders that the Mother seeks to vary.  In some respects, the parameters are quite narrow as the Mother only seeks to…