FATHER DENIED OF REINSTATEMENT OF FACE TO FACE TIME WITH HIS CHILDREN
COLLINGWOOD & COLLINGWOOD
[2020] FamCA 390
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
In this case, the Father seeks face to face time with the children after the Mother unilaterally ceased the children's time with him.
FACTS:
Parties are separated parents of three boys, B, C, and D (the children). Mr. Collingwood (the Father) asserts that there has been a history, since the parents separated in November 2017, of Ms. Collingwood (the Mother) resisting his spending time with the children. On 22 January 2019, orders were made for the children to spend time with the Father on three Saturdays out of four with the changeover to occur at the G Contact Centre (the Centre). Unfortunately, the Centre was unable to accommodate the family, and the contact did not start until 30 November 2019.
After three supervised sessions, the family moved to facilitated changeovers. The children were not presented for changeover. The Mother did not respond to requests for meeting with the Centre. The Centre made multiple requests to the Mother for a meeting, but she refused.
The Father filed an application seeking to vary the orders so that the changeover venue is at a McDonald's Family Restaurant. In the alternate, the Father proposes that he collect and return the children from their residence, remaining in the car at all times. The Father sought the reinstatement of face to face time with the children.
The Mother has not responded to the application. The Mother, however, sent medical evidence showing that the children and she are in isolation. The matter proceeded as the Mother's email and annexures formed part of the evidence as the Mother failed to appear on schedule the hearing. One of the annexures to the Mother's email was a letter from the children's general practitioner, Dr. H, dated 19 May 2020. It stated that all children have been unwell with recurrent viral illnesses and a recommendation for them to continue to self isolate while there are ongoing cases of COVID 19.
Having regard to the matters raised by the general practitioner, the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) did not support the reinstatement of face to face time as sought by the Father. However, the ICL prepared a Minute of Orders providing for Zoom weekly contact.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court should reinstate face to face time between the Father and the children.
HELD:
To some extent, the detriment will be ameliorated by the video conferencing between the Father and the children. Hence, the Court ordered the children to communicate with the Father each Saturday at 2 pm for up to half an hour by Zoom. Further, the matter was relisted for further consideration of the resumption of fact to face time between the Father and the children in one month.
While the Father's anxiety to resume face-to-face contact with the children is entirely understandable and appropriate, it is also fitting that the children's medical practitioner's advice is considered. In the present circumstances, the children's physical health must take precedence over the benefit of their spend