Wright and Adams

[2013] FamCA 947

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WRIGHT & ADAMS [2013] FamCA 947

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Where the only issue for determination is parental responsibility – Where there is no sufficient complexity about the case as would warrant it remaining in the Family Court – Matter transferred to the Federal Circuit Court

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Wright

RESPONDENT: Ms Adams

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7255 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 2 December 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 2 December 2013

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Salvos Legal Humanitarian
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	AMH Lawyers
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER	Forest Glen Lawyers

Orders

1. Pursuant to section 33B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) these proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Wright & Adams 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 7255 of 2009

Mr Wright

Applicant

And

Mr Adams

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These parenting proceedings concern the children, L born in 1997, D born in 1999, J born in 2001 and B born in 2003. 

2. Unfortunately, this has been a long standing parenting dispute concerning these children.  Final orders were made by Jarrett FM (as his Honour then was) in May of 2011, which orders were amended in July 2011. 

3. It is on the record before me this morning that the position has now been reached that no party takes any issue with the prevailing parenting orders (which provide for equal time), save only in respect of the prevailing order for equal shared parental responsibility. 

4. The Father, Mr Wright had, by his application, agitated a change to that position but has now resolved, based upon expert evidence that has been provided which he accepts as resolving his concerns about alleged mental health issues of the Mother which led to his application, that he no longer seeks to agitate any other parenting issue. He recently filed a Notice of Discontinuance of his application in the hope of ending all parenting disputes.

5. However, because of the Mother’s filed response the only question remaining is the issue concerning shared parental responsibility.

6. The Mother, Ms Adams, seeks by her Response to the Father’s now discontinued application an order for sole parental responsibility, albeit that she is prepared, it seems, to consent to an order which would involve her having sole parental responsibility, but being obliged to consult the Father and take account of his views with respect to major long-term issue decisions before making such decisions. 

7. That is confirmed by all parties on the record today as the sole matter now in issue in these long standing proceedings.  It is an issue which can, it seems to me, be resolved on the expert evidence including the family report with only very short evidence from each party, given that that evidence, it would seem, is simply going to confirm the position that the parties are unable to usefully consult on issues concerning parental responsibility.

8. As is trite, a parenting order which provides for an order for equal shared parental responsibility means that pursuant to s 65DAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), the order requires the parents to consult each other in relation to decisions to be made about an issue and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue.  These parents do not agree upon much, it would seem, but what they do agree upon is that they are utterly unable to sensibly consult each other about decisions to be made in respect of major long-term issues nor are they able to make, it seems, any realistic or genuine efforts to come to a joint decision about such issues.  Therefore, it is wholly and solely that issue that needs to be resolved by a court. 

9. It seems to me that on that basis, there remains no sufficient complexity about the case as would warrant it remaining in this Court. 

10. I therefore order pursuant to s 33B of the Act that the proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court. 

11. I reiterate that the only matter in issue is as I have identified in these reasons and as each party confirmed before me on the record.  That is, the sole remaining issue to be determined by the court is the question of the existing order for equal shared parental responsibility and whether there should be some change or variation to that order and only that order. 

12. It is that issue which is transferred to be heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court. 

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 2 December 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  3 December 2013