CALES & CALES
Case
•
[2011] FamCA 307
•6 May 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
CALES & CALES [2011] FamCA 307
[2011] FamCA 307
6 May 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned parenting orders for two children, J and E. The mother sought to relocate with the children, and the father sought substantial and significant time with them. The court was required to determine the extent of parental responsibility, the living arrangements for the children, the time the children would spend with each parent, and whether to grant an injunction restraining the mother's proposed relocation.
The court considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, which it found applied. It noted that while the children were immature, their views were given little weight. The court found that both parents were willing and able to facilitate a close and continuing relationship between the children and the other parent, and that the children had strong attachments to both. The court also considered the practical difficulties of travel between the parents' residences and the denigration of the father by the maternal family. Despite these issues, the court found that the parents were willing to improve communication. Regarding relocation, the court held that there was no onus on the relocating parent to provide compelling reasons and that it would consider the reasons of both parents for their desired residences. The court ultimately balanced all factors in the best interests of the children.
The court discharged all former parenting orders and ordered equal shared parental responsibility. The children were to live with the mother. The father was to have substantial and significant time with the children, with specific arrangements detailed for periods when the father lived within or outside a 50-kilometre radius of the mother's residence, including alternate weekends and school holidays. Further orders addressed Christmas and Father's/Mother's Day arrangements, collection and return of the children, and private telephone and internet communication. The court also made orders restraining denigration, requiring notification of medical emergencies and educational events, and mandating the exchange of contact details and participation in a post-separation parenting program.
The court considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, which it found applied. It noted that while the children were immature, their views were given little weight. The court found that both parents were willing and able to facilitate a close and continuing relationship between the children and the other parent, and that the children had strong attachments to both. The court also considered the practical difficulties of travel between the parents' residences and the denigration of the father by the maternal family. Despite these issues, the court found that the parents were willing to improve communication. Regarding relocation, the court held that there was no onus on the relocating parent to provide compelling reasons and that it would consider the reasons of both parents for their desired residences. The court ultimately balanced all factors in the best interests of the children.
The court discharged all former parenting orders and ordered equal shared parental responsibility. The children were to live with the mother. The father was to have substantial and significant time with the children, with specific arrangements detailed for periods when the father lived within or outside a 50-kilometre radius of the mother's residence, including alternate weekends and school holidays. Further orders addressed Christmas and Father's/Mother's Day arrangements, collection and return of the children, and private telephone and internet communication. The court also made orders restraining denigration, requiring notification of medical emergencies and educational events, and mandating the exchange of contact details and participation in a post-separation parenting program.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
CALES & CALES [2011] FamCA 307
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
1
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[1997] HCA 25
AMS v AIF
[1999] HCA 26
Taylor & Barker
[2007] FamCA 1246