Armand and Sheriff
Case
•
[2019] FamCA 172
•22 March 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Armand and Sheriff [2019] FamCA 172
[2019] FamCA 172
22 March 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by the Applicant Mother for orders relating to the parenting of the child B, born in 2004. The dispute involved the child's residence, parental responsibility, relocation of the child to Country C, and the arrangements for the Respondent Father to spend time with B. The orders were made by Gill J.
The court was required to determine the primary residence of the child B, the allocation of parental responsibility, and whether to permit the Applicant Mother to relocate with B to Country C. Further issues included the arrangements for the Respondent Father to spend time with B in Australia, the process for obtaining a passport for B, and the communication protocols between the parents and the child. The court also considered the financial responsibility for the child's travel costs and the circumstances under which the Respondent Father might spend time with B in Country C.
Gill J ordered that B live with the Applicant Mother and that she have sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions for informing the Respondent Father of decisions. The court permitted the Applicant Mother to relocate with B to Country C, with specific timing related to school holidays. Orders were made regarding the issuance of a passport for B, authorising the Australian Passport Office to issue it without the Respondent Father's consent under section 11(1)(b) of the *Australian Passports Act 2005* (Cth). Extensive provisions were set out for B's travel to and from Australia to spend time with the Respondent Father, including specific dates and durations for various holiday periods. The court also detailed communication rights between the parents and B, and imposed restraints on denigration of either parent.
The court further ordered that the Applicant Mother be responsible for B's travel costs and provide flight details to the Respondent Father. Provisions were made for the Respondent Father to spend time with B in Country C under specific circumstances, with the Applicant Mother bearing the costs. Pending relocation, interim time arrangements for B to spend time with the Respondent Father were also stipulated. The orders included a notation that the Respondent Father was welcome to travel to Country C during the Christmas holiday period 2020-2021, and that B was enrolled at E School in City D, Country C.
The court was required to determine the primary residence of the child B, the allocation of parental responsibility, and whether to permit the Applicant Mother to relocate with B to Country C. Further issues included the arrangements for the Respondent Father to spend time with B in Australia, the process for obtaining a passport for B, and the communication protocols between the parents and the child. The court also considered the financial responsibility for the child's travel costs and the circumstances under which the Respondent Father might spend time with B in Country C.
Gill J ordered that B live with the Applicant Mother and that she have sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions for informing the Respondent Father of decisions. The court permitted the Applicant Mother to relocate with B to Country C, with specific timing related to school holidays. Orders were made regarding the issuance of a passport for B, authorising the Australian Passport Office to issue it without the Respondent Father's consent under section 11(1)(b) of the *Australian Passports Act 2005* (Cth). Extensive provisions were set out for B's travel to and from Australia to spend time with the Respondent Father, including specific dates and durations for various holiday periods. The court also detailed communication rights between the parents and B, and imposed restraints on denigration of either parent.
The court further ordered that the Applicant Mother be responsible for B's travel costs and provide flight details to the Respondent Father. Provisions were made for the Respondent Father to spend time with B in Country C under specific circumstances, with the Applicant Mother bearing the costs. Pending relocation, interim time arrangements for B to spend time with the Respondent Father were also stipulated. The orders included a notation that the Respondent Father was welcome to travel to Country C during the Christmas holiday period 2020-2021, and that B was enrolled at E School in City D, Country C.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Armand and Sheriff [2019] FamCA 172
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Taylor & Barker
[2007] FamCA 1246
AMS v AIF
[1999] HCA 26
MRR v GR
[2010] HCA 4