Kori & Georgene (No 2)

[2024] FedCFamC1F 328

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Kori & Georgene (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 328

File number(s):	BRC 16543 of 2020
Judgment of:	BAUMANN J
Date of judgment:	1 May 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Second Recovery order
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	11
Date of hearing:	On the papers in chambers
Place:	Brisbane
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Litigant in person (did not participate)
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Turnbull Mylne (no appearance)

ORDERS

BRC 16543 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS KORI

Applicant

AND:

MR GEORGENE

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:

1.That the Court having considered the Application in a Proceeding and supporting affidavit filed on behalf of the father today, 1 May 2024, the Application proceed ex parte on an urgent basis.

Recovery Order

2.That a Recovery Order do issue authorising/directing the Marshal, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the police forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia, with such assistance as may be required, and if necessary by force:

(a)to find and recover the child, X born 2015 and to deliver the child to the Respondent father at such place as the father and the person effecting such recovery agree to be appropriate; and

(b)to stop and search any vehicle, vessel or aircraft and to enter and search any premises or place in which there is at any time reasonable cause to believe that the said child may be found.

3.That the mother, her servants and/or agents are hereby restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing the removal of the child from the father’s care until further order of the Court.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Kori & Georgene has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BAUMANN J

1. Yesterday, the Court, in chambers, made a recovery order in respect of the child X, born 2015.  The order was made ex parte and on an urgent basis.

2. A short history of the matter, for context, is helpful.

3. After a trial, which took place over four days in July and November 2023, on 11 December 2023 the Court made an order that the child, X, live with the father.  The Court had earlier ordered that the mother bring the child to the Court.  The mother failed to do so.  Accordingly, after delivery of Judgment on 11 December 2023, the Court, on 14 December 2023, for Reasons given orally at the time, made an order for the recovery of the child and the return of the child to the father, Mr Georgene. 

4. That order was perfected.

5. Since the time the child has been in the care of the father as a result of the earlier Orders and effecting a recovery order, the mother has not genuinely engaged in the process.  She has, on each occasion that the matter has been before the Court, asserted, as an alleged “sovereign citizen,” that the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders.  A number of other allegations against the Court, the judge and the like have been made by the mother, generally by submission.

6. The mother has failed to appear personally before the Court despite orders that she do so.  The matter was before the Court on 24 January 2024 when an oral application by the mother, who appeared by telephone on that occasion, for the child to be returned to her care was dismissed.

7. The mother was required, by that order, to file and serve a Response.  She has failed to do so.  The mother’s conduct on that occasion by telephone had some element of concern such that the Court ordered that a copy of the transcript of those proceedings be provided to the parties and to the Marshal and/or Sheriff of the Court.  The matter returned to the Court on 17 April 2024 for the purpose of a Case Management Hearing.  The mother, Ms Kori, did not appear on that occasion.

8. The Court had evidence about how the child was progressing with the help of therapeutic assistance.  As a result of the submissions made, acknowledged to be in the absence of the mother on that occasion but with a view to bringing some finality of those proceedings where the mother was not generally engaging with the proceedings now, the matter was listed for an undefended hearing on 23 May 2024.  The parties were ordered to attend personally before the Court on that date.  That listing remains.

9. The afternoon of 1 May 2024, chambers became aware of an urgent Application filed by the father for a recovery order.  It was supported by an affidavit by his lawyer, Mr Mylne.  The very short affidavit attaches two notes from the child’s school, the effect of which were that, on one day, a person alleged to be the mother became involved in an altercation, mostly verbal, with staff at the school when she sought to gain access to her daughter.  Subsequently, the mother, if the note is correct, somewhat disguised, attended at the school and, without authority and in breach of Orders made by this Court, removed the child from the school.

10. The lawyer for the father characterises the mother’s conduct as an “abduction”.  In view of the earlier decisions made by this Court, the Court was extremely concerned for the welfare of the child and, as a result, on the Application filed urgently, the Court elected to deal with the matter ex parte and issue a recovery order.  The Court has no way of knowing how successful the police will be in recovering the child for, now, the second time.

11. I am satisfied that a recovery order was required in the best interests of the child.  These Reasons reflect the reasons why the recovery order was made yesterday.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.

Associate:  

Dated:       21 May 2024