Calvert and Madock
Case
•
[2020] FamCA 219
•8 April 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Calvert and Madock [2020] FamCA 219
[2020] FamCA 219
8 April 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Calvert and Madock*, heard by Tree J, the court was asked to determine parenting orders concerning three children. The dispute involved the father seeking sole parental responsibility and the children living with him, while the mother's role in the children's lives was also a central issue.
The court was required to determine whether to discharge existing parenting orders and, if so, what new orders should be made regarding parental responsibility, the children's living arrangements, and their time and communication with each parent. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether to impose restraints on the mother's ability to attend certain professionals or authorities with concerns relating to the children, and under what circumstances such restraints might be lifted.
Tree J reasoned that the father should have sole parental responsibility for both long-term and day-to-day matters, and that the children should live with him. The court determined that the father would decide any time or communication the children had with the mother, although the mother would be permitted to send cards and gifts. Crucially, the father was prohibited from allowing unsupervised time between the children and the mother. The court also imposed significant restraints on the mother, preventing her from attending medical practitioners, hospitals, allied health providers, child welfare authorities, or the police service with concerns about the children, unless she obtained the father's written consent, acted in an emergency, or obtained court permission. The father was granted leave to provide relevant reports and orders to various institutions, while the mother was directed to provide them to any counsellor she engaged.
The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility and the children were ordered to live with him. The mother was restrained from attending specified professionals or authorities without consent or court permission, with exceptions for emergencies. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether to discharge existing parenting orders and, if so, what new orders should be made regarding parental responsibility, the children's living arrangements, and their time and communication with each parent. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether to impose restraints on the mother's ability to attend certain professionals or authorities with concerns relating to the children, and under what circumstances such restraints might be lifted.
Tree J reasoned that the father should have sole parental responsibility for both long-term and day-to-day matters, and that the children should live with him. The court determined that the father would decide any time or communication the children had with the mother, although the mother would be permitted to send cards and gifts. Crucially, the father was prohibited from allowing unsupervised time between the children and the mother. The court also imposed significant restraints on the mother, preventing her from attending medical practitioners, hospitals, allied health providers, child welfare authorities, or the police service with concerns about the children, unless she obtained the father's written consent, acted in an emergency, or obtained court permission. The father was granted leave to provide relevant reports and orders to various institutions, while the mother was directed to provide them to any counsellor she engaged.
The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility and the children were ordered to live with him. The mother was restrained from attending specified professionals or authorities without consent or court permission, with exceptions for emergencies. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Calvert and Madock [2020] FamCA 219
Most Recent Citation
Binns & Palister [2021] FedCFamC1F 142
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Jennings & Jennings
[2021] FedCFamC1F 314
Binns & Palister
[2021] FedCFamC1F 142
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Banks & Banks
[2015] FamCAFC 36
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30
S v Australian Crime Commission
[2005] FCA 1310