Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Federal Magistrate Jarrett

No nonsense, cut to the chase

This gentleman, of tender years (well he is younger than me), is very much a no nonense, cut to the chase, and don't stuff around in my court sort of chap.

Hubby had interim hearing this week, and now has final orders. Which for us also means that hubby will not have to travel again to the provincial city where the matter was orginally heard. This week, the hearing was in the city (close to us) so hubby attended in person, and all the others, inlcuding hubby's solicitor, attended by phone. Hubby's communication with his solicitor was immediate and concise, but getting a response during the negotation phase (out of court) with the other party and her solicitor was a bit like pulling teeth. His honour eventually set a time limit. Her solicitor left it until the death knell to send their response through. FM Jarrett advised that he would consider it and make his decision the next day.

Hubby had sent an ammended version of orders (based on the family report) and yet the other party wanted to reduce the contact and information sharing etc. Hubby reluctantly agreed to their changes. The orders that have now come through (via the court portal, we haven't seen the stamped version yet) are EXACTLY what hubby proposed. So that has come as a bit of a shock, but commonsense has prevailed.

But for others in the court on the day, well things weren't going as well as they thought. There were two cases that just couldn't reach agreement, even though they were given time to reconsider. To say that the judge was a little peeved by their actions was an understatement.

And there was another case, where a mother was proposing relocating 700km away so she could be near her family, and she could attend uni in a provincial city. His honour said to her solicitor that he did not care about the client, how was the move in the best interests of the child. The solicitor was a bit taken aback and tried to justify his actions by saying that he had only just taken the mother on as a client, and that he needed extra time, like about two weeks at least. Another comment that was not what the judge wanted to hear. He was allowed a week.

His honour is also the sort that does not believe in "best endeavours". We have seen him previously rule that out and replace it with "will". He says that best endeavours does not mean anything, and gives no onus of responsibility.
 O_o Unfortunatley you speak only on the side of the man.  Judge Jarret has a habit of sending children who have disclosed sexual abuse and it has been documented via Bravehearts - TO THE PERPETRATING FATHER.  PS: No contact for the mother.

He just recently decided that because a child didnt want to see the father he barely knew since he was two that it was alientation and not the childs decision and sent the child to live with the father.

There is much documented violence and the mother and family had a payout due to the domestic violence yet JUDGE JARRET send the kid to the unknown father.

Hooray for Judge Jarret.  He certainly looks after the men doesn't he.  Even if they are violent or sexual offenders.

To make it even better, the court reporters up there and the cops in grafton aren't much better when it comes to assisting victim mothers of crime.  

Wht a sad society we live in if you say the man is good because he gave the male friend of yours what he wanted.
Intersting ausaec that you go trawling a site and come up with a post that is over 18 months old. There were other matters on the day that favoured the woman, I just happened to mention two cases, that is all.

Are those judgements that you talk of on austlii? If so, please post the links so others can read.

And I find it interesting that you refer to my husband as a friend of mine.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets