Family Court Matters extracted from the
Australasian Legal Information Institute [AustLii]
Potter & Ross  FamCA 26 (30 January 2015)
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – with whom a child lives, spends time and communicates – where the parties have a long history of parenting proceedings – where final parenting orders have previously been made by consent in 2008 and 2013 – where the father continues to allege the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the mother’s care – where the mother alleges the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the father’s care – where the father has previously retained the child in his care contrary to operative orders
Feltham and Feltham  FCWA 84(16 December 2014)
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING ISSUES – Whether children should live with mother or father – Where parties had implemented a shared care arrangement – Where father commenced home schooling children – Where father highly critical of mother – Where Court makes interim orders placing children in the full-time care of father as a consequence of allegations which are later found to be unsubstantiated or exaggerated – Where older children align with father while in his care and express negative views of mother – Where older children present as aggressive and disdainful towards mother – Where older children assert that mother does not love them – Where single expert has serious concerns regarding father's temperament, honesty and motivation – Where Court subsequently reverses previous interim orders and places children in the full-time care of mother – Where orders made for children to attend mainstream schools – Where father presented as opinionated and controlling – Finding that father demonised mother and turned children against her – Finding that father encouraged children, whether directly or indirectly, to dislike mother, to treat her with disrespect and to reject her as a person and as a parent – Where father's attitudes have impacted adversely on the children – Where mother clearly capable of providing for children's needs, including emotional and intellectual needs – Where father not currently capable of providing for children's emotional needs – Consideration of Family Law Act 1975 s 60CC factors – Conclusion that it is in children's best interests to live with mother and for mother to have sole parental responsibility
Ridgley & Stiller  FCCA 2668(19 November 2014)
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Father seeking orders that he have sole parental responsibility for the parties’ 8 year old daughter, she live with him and spend time with the mother on the basis this is the only way the child will have a relationship with both parents as the mother does not support the child’s relationship with him and has a long history of failing to comply with the Court’s orders and preventing the child from spending time with him. The mother opposes the father’s application and seeks that the existing living arrangements continue whereby the child lives with her and spends alternate weekends and half of school holidays with the father as she now realises the importance of the child having a relationship with the father and she will comply with all orders for the child to spend time with the father. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and report writer support the father’s application. Found: mother does not accept the importance of the child having a relationship with the father and the only way the child will be able to have a relationship with both parents is if she lives with the father. Orders made for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the child, for the child to live with the father and spend significant and substantial time with the mother.
Aldrich & Bingley  FamCA 516(16 July 2014)
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Final Orders – provision of information – where mother opposed the father being made aware of the location of the children’s school – where father sought to be involved in children’s education – previous allegations of violence – orders made for the father to be permitted to obtain school reports and attend interviews by telephone – injunction granted restraining father from attending the school.
Martin & Martin  FCCA 1698 (23 October 2013)
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – whether or not the children have been alienated from the mother by the father – whether or not the children have been abused in the mother’s household – whether or not the children have been psychologically abused by the father – the role of religion – interim orders made to be reviewed in 6 months time.
Isaac & Isaac  FCCA 136 (24 June 2013)
FAMILY LAW – Application for final parenting orders – competing applications for live with orders – allegations of and existence of family violence – concerns as to mother’s mental health and capacity to promote children’s relationship with father – evidence of independent experts – concerns as to children’s best interests if they remain in current environment – effect of change – position of Independent Children’s Lawyer – whether orders in children’s best interests.
Turner & Turner  FCCA 324 (4 June 2013)
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – children aged 14, 12 & 9 living with the mother – mother emotionally abusing the children by obstructing them having a relationship with the father – whether a change of residence should be considered – whether a change of residence is feasible.
Udall & Oaks  FMCAfam 1482 (22 October 2010)
FAMILY LAW – Parenting arrangements – allegations of physical abuse – allegations of sexual abuse.
Irish & Michelle  FamCA 66 (6 February 2009)
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Equal shared parental responsibility – With whom a child lives – child’s view – issues of credit – alienation of child from parent
Goode & Goode  FamCA 1346 (15 December 2006)
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – APPEAL – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Discussion of the extent to which Cowling v Cowling  FamCA 19; (1998) FLC 92-801 continues to apply after the commencement of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth) – Discussion of principles for the conduct of interim hearings after 1 July 2006
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Section 61DA – What is the significance of the specific references to parental responsibility and interim proceedings in the Act?
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY – Section 65DAC – Difference between ‘parental responsibility’ as set out in s 61C(1) and discussed by the Full Court in B v. B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) FLC 92-755 and ‘Shared Parental Responsibility’ as set out in section 65DAC
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PRESUMPTION OF EQUAL SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY – Section 61DA – No presumption as to the amount of time that a child must spend with each of his or her parents
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PRESUMPTION OF EQUAL SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY – Circumstances leading to rebuttal of presumption – Order for equal shared parental responsibility or equal time, other than by application of the presumption – Where presumption is not applied or rebutted, the Court is at large to consider what arrangements will best promote the child’s best interests having regard to the objects and principles in s 60B and the primary and secondary considerations in s 60CC
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – EQUAL TIME – SUBSTANTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT TIME – In the context of s 65DAA ‘consider’ means a consideration tending to a result, or to consider positively the making of an order
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PRESUMPTION OF SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY – The significance of untested evidence which may be capable of affecting the presumption
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – APPEAL – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Alleged error in finding that s 65DAA did not apply – Alleged error in applying Cowling v Cowling  FamCA 19; (1998) FLC 92-801 – Alleged error in findings of fact – Alleged error in failing to address aspect of application not pressed in submission – Alleged failure to give adequate reasons