Bates and Whittaker
Case
•
[2016] FCCA 2601
•14 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bates and Whittaker [2016] FCCA 2601
[2016] FCCA 2601
14 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Bates and Whittaker*, heard by Judge Coker, the dispute concerned parenting orders for the child X. The previous parenting orders were discharged, and the court made new orders regarding the child's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and time spent with each parent.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child X, specifically concerning where the child would live, who would have parental responsibility for major long-term issues, and the nature and extent of the child's time with each parent. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between the parents regarding the child's welfare and education, and to address restrictions on each parent's conduct during their time with the child.
The court ordered that the child X live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues. However, the mother was required to consult with the father in writing regarding significant decisions, providing him with 14 days to respond and considering his views before making a final decision. The child was to spend time with the father on alternate Sundays and Father's Day, with specific provisions for communication via letters and a period of up to seven nights during school holidays, subject to the father providing notice and travel details. The father was prohibited from taking the child to counsellors or agencies and was restricted from having other adults present during his time with the child, except for extended family. The mother could suspend the child's time with the father for up to two weeks annually for uninterrupted holiday time. The orders also included provisions for parents to keep each other informed of addresses, contact details, and the child's medical and educational information, and mandated respectful communication and behaviour towards the other parent in the child's presence. All outstanding applications were dismissed, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child X, specifically concerning where the child would live, who would have parental responsibility for major long-term issues, and the nature and extent of the child's time with each parent. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between the parents regarding the child's welfare and education, and to address restrictions on each parent's conduct during their time with the child.
The court ordered that the child X live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues. However, the mother was required to consult with the father in writing regarding significant decisions, providing him with 14 days to respond and considering his views before making a final decision. The child was to spend time with the father on alternate Sundays and Father's Day, with specific provisions for communication via letters and a period of up to seven nights during school holidays, subject to the father providing notice and travel details. The father was prohibited from taking the child to counsellors or agencies and was restricted from having other adults present during his time with the child, except for extended family. The mother could suspend the child's time with the father for up to two weeks annually for uninterrupted holiday time. The orders also included provisions for parents to keep each other informed of addresses, contact details, and the child's medical and educational information, and mandated respectful communication and behaviour towards the other parent in the child's presence. All outstanding applications were dismissed, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Bates and Whittaker [2016] FCCA 2601
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
2
Heath & Hemming (No 2)
[2011] FamCA 749
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[1997] HCA 25
Taylor & Barker
[2007] FamCA 1246