·   ·  664 posts
  •  ·  3859 friends

FATHER SEEKS FOR NEW PARENTING ARRANGEMENT WHICH WOULD RESULT TO THE REOPENING OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Verboom & Verboom [2019] FCCA 3941 (31 October 2019)

Father seeks to reopen the parenting proceedings while the mother seeks for the summary dismissal of the father’s application.

Facts:

These proceedings relate to future care arrangements for two children: B, born in 2012; and, C, born in 2013. The parties to the proceedings are the children’s parents - their Father, Mr Verboom, the Applicant, their Mother, Ms Verboom, as she has been known throughout the proceedings, the Respondent.

A number of further Applications in a Case and other materials were filed in the course of those proceedings and orders on August 2017 were made. Those orders concluded the parenting aspect of the proceedings. The property adjustment aspect of the proceedings continued for some little time but was ultimately resolved by final orders.

The orders that are sought by Mr Verboom on an interim basis are as follows: (1) That the children be placed in a safe environment. One might infer from this plea for relief that it is suggested the children are not presently in a safe environment, living as they do, pursuant to orders previously made by this Court on August 2017, with their Mother;  (2) That the Father have sole parental responsibility of the children; (3) That the children live with the Father; and (4) That the Mother undertake a parenting course and seek treatment.

Ms Verboom, by her Response, seeks dismissal of the proceedings and costs.

Issue: Should the court grant the orders sought by the applicant or dismiss the proceedings as sought by the respondent?

Law:

Analysis:

At the time that the orders were made, these children were two years younger than at present. B was five years of age and C was but four years of age, or not quite. The matters that are raised by Mr Verboom, being largely historical, could not support the establishment of any change in circumstances that warrants a reopening.

The best interests of these children are paramount.  Nothing contained within Mr Verboom’s material could possibly raise a serious judiciable controversy or factual dispute regarding them.

The relief sought by the Applicant would be entirely inconsistent with what has already been included within a family violence order.  The Court has a serious obligation to not make orders that are inconsistent without full and good reason.  Having regard to Ms Verboom’s evidence at this point, and having regard to the merits of the case, it is all the more improbable that anything could be achieved by the proceedings other than further disadvantage to these children.

Conclusion: Court orders to dismiss all outstanding Applications and Responses.

 

Comments (0)
Login or Join to comment.

FLAST

Close