Williams and Hansel

[2007] FamCA 1272

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILLIAMS & HANSEL [2007] FamCA 1272

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Contravention – Application to vary orders pending

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:  Mr Williams

RESPONDENT:  Ms Hansel  

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10840 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 15 October 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Brown J

HEARING DATE: 15 October 2007

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hughes Watson Marks Kennedy

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. W.M. Pinner

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Tyler Tipping & Woods

Orders

1. That the application for contravention filed by the father on 28 September, 2007 be adjourned to the case assessment conference listed at 9:15 am. on 30 October, 2007 and in the event the parties are unable to resolve the matters at that case assessment conference, at its conclusion a registrar is requested to give directions for the listing of the contravention application, together with all other directions necessary in respect of the initiating application filed 30 October, 2007. 

2. That the mother’s costs of this day be reserved.

3. That pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10840  of 2007

MR WILLIAMS  

Applicant

And

MS HANSEL   

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The parties have a son, L, born in December 1996.  Before the court is an application filed by the father, Mr Williams, seeking to have the mother, Ms Hansel, dealt with for contravening orders made in this court on 5 November 1998 relating to the child L.  The father also filed an initiating application, in which he sought a variation of the parenting orders made back in 1998.  Unfortunately, the initiating application was listed for a case assessment conference at 9.15 on 30 October, and the application for contravention listed today in the judicial duty list. 

2. Counsel appears for the mother but there is no appearance by the father.  Counsel contacted the solicitors for the father.  It appears that they may have been under a misapprehension that all matters were returnable on 30 October, which is a Tuesday.  On Tuesday, there is no judicial duty list.

3. Having regard to the time that has elapsed since these parenting orders were made, the father’s application to vary them, and the child’s age, I will adjourn the contravention application to the case assessment conference.  The lawyers will be aware that a registrar cannot hear that application but she or he can make directions about its future conduct.  Being optimistic, the parties may reach agreement through the case assessment process (when they will have the assistance of a family consultant) and through negotiation between lawyers.  If they cannot, a registrar can be brought in to give directions necessary to list the contravention application at an appropriate time, and to ensure that all available material will then be before the court. 

4. I will order that those reasons be transcribed so that they are on the file for all the parties to read.

I certify that the preceding four paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Brown AM.

Associate

15 October 2007