THE MOTHER SOUGHT FOR ORDERS ALLOWING HER CHILD TO DECIDE ON THE EXTENT OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE FATHER
MELI & HUTCHESON
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[2020] FamCA 420
FACTS:
Ms. Meli (the mother) filed an Application for orders discharging the final parenting orders made 25 May 2016. The final orders provided that the mother has sole parental responsibility for the child, that the child live with her and that leave be given for the mother to relocate the child’s residence to the United Kingdom. Also, it provided for the arrangements for the father to see the child in 2017, 2018, 2019 and each year thereafter.
In her Application, the mother sought for sole responsibility over the parties’ child. Also, the mother sought for her to be the sole signatory on any European and/or Australian passport that is relevant to the child. Finally, she sought orders allowing the child to determine the extent of the communication with Mr. Hutcheson (the father), who did not reply to the Initiating Application.
Because of the father’s lack of engagement in the proceedings, the matter proceeded undefended.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the mother’s proposal that the child be allowed to determine the extent of communication she will have with her father be allowed by the Court?
HELD:
The Court found that it is in the best interests of the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father as may be agreed between the parties.
The mother sought relief from the final parenting order due to the father’s level and extent engagement with the mother gradually reduced. The Court found that the father, for reasons that are not apparent on the documents and presumably are specific to his circumstances are, had chosen to disengage from the child. The communication between the parties is scant and the only method by which the mother is aware of the father’s activities is by reference to social media and in particular, the father’s Facebook posts. More relevantly though, the position was that the child was keen to maintain a relationship with her father but now she is either ambivalent at best or reluctant, at worst. It arose from the father not engaging with the child and not taking up the opportunity that the orders provided to him.
The Court considered the effect of supporting the child to have a meaningful relationship with her father.[1] The proposed orders sought that all communication between the child and the father be subject to the child’s wishes; however, the Court found that such order does not find favor in terms of a child who is nearly nine years of age. The Court, instead, ordered for a retention of the existing order providing for the father to spend time with the child at such other times as may be agreed between the parties in writing by email, a method and manner by which the mother is able to be the gatekeeper as to what the future arrangements will be if she considers that it is appropriate to do so.
[1] Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).