Father Seeks Interim Intervention Order Against the Mother
Meadis & Meadis [2022] FedCFamC1F 62 (24 January 2022)
The father has recently been released from a term of imprisonment imposed for his serious assault on the mother. The father seeks domestic violence/intervention order against the mother in state court based on his allegations that the mother has been financially abusive of him. The Court, in making its orders, assessed whether the parties can rely on records of decisions made in this court and in the Federal Circuit Court in relation to family law matters.
Facts:
The father who has been convicted of assaulting the mother after pleading guilty and having served his period of incarceration gives a contradictory explanation of the assault. The father now alleges that the mother staged the assault, that he was innocent and that it is in the best interests of the children that they live with him. The father seeks domestic violence/intervention order against the mother in state court based on his allegations that the mother has been financially abusive of him
The proceedings concern X who is nearly 16 years old. X has been diagnosed with high functioning autism, Y who is nearly 14 years old and Z who is 12 years old. Their interest are represented by an independent children’s lawyer, Justine Bowman. The father is self-represented as are the paternal grandparents. The father has recently been released from a term of imprisonment imposed for his serious assault on the mother.
The children have no face-to-face contact with the father and there is limited ability for the father to communicate with the children in writing. It is also the paternal grandparents, who have a greater degree of communication with the children, – but not face-to-face communication. Mr Nicholson, for the mother, submits that it should be left to the discretion of the family report writer as to whether the children, or any of them, are observed with the father and/or the paternal grandparents. The father’s position is that he wants there to be an observation between the children and himself and the grandparents, providing that it’s not detrimental to the children.
The paternal grandparents’ position is that there should be an observation at least of their relationship with the children, and that that should be done regardless. It should not be left to the discretion of family report writer. The independent children’s lawyer supports the wife’s position. The father has already made reference to the decision of Judge Stewart in the earlier proceedings to obtain an interim intervention order.
That was a matter upon which Hartnett J commented in her reasons for decision. The father says the mother has also made use of records of proceedings in this court.
Issues:
I. Whether or not the children should be observed by the family consultant with any or all of the parties with whom they currently don’t have any contact.
II. Whether or not the parties can rely on records of decisions made in this court and in the Federal Circuit Court in relation to family law matters.
Applicable law:
Family Law Act 1975 s 62G - requires that a family report be prepared by a Court Child Expert, practicing under their appointment as a family consultant.
Family Law Act 1975 s 60B(2)(b) - recognises that, as long as it is in their best interests, a child has the right to spend time and communicate with their parents, and other people important to them, such as grandparents, relatives and members of extended families
Analysis:
The children should be observed with the paternal family members who are parties to the proceedings. However, the Court wants to avoid a situation where a family report is published and the parties subsequently make application to be observed with the children. The Court does not anticipate that this family report will be prepared much before August of this year, given the chronic shortage of resources for such reports, and the Court does want to lose the hearing dates that the Court has allocated to the matter because the Child Court Expert has insufficient time to conduct observation sessions.
The parents do not require permission to rely in the state court on orders made and reasons for decision published in these proceedings. Those documents are not subject to any implied undertaking against disclosure.
Conclusion:
The requirements of s 102NA (2) of the Family Law Act 1975 will apply to this proceedings. The mother and the father are to make an application to Victoria Legal Aid for funding pursuant to s 102NA (2) for the final hearing of this matter which is due to commence on 20 September 2022. Liberty is reserved to the paternal grandparents, of either of them, to make application for funding pursuant to s 102NA (2) for the final hearing of this matter or as they may be advised. It is in order for parties to the proceedings in the state courts to rely of orders and reasons for decision from these proceedings. The court will facilitate delivery of documents to the state court for that purpose.
