Cannon & Acres
Case
•
[2014] FamCA 104
•6 March 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Cannon & Acres [2014] FamCA 104
[2014] FamCA 104
6 March 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Cannon & Acres*, Benjamin J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child born in 2001, where allegations of parental alienation and family violence were raised. The child expressed a strong desire to have no time or communication with the father. The mother sought orders for sole parental responsibility and for the father to have no time or communication with the child, as well as orders prohibiting the father from instituting vexatious proceedings.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in circumstances marked by significant conflict and allegations of alienation. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to discharge existing parenting orders, grant the mother sole parental responsibility, and make orders regarding the father's time and communication with the child. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the mother's application for vexatious proceedings orders against the father under section 102Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).
Benjamin J discharged all previous parenting orders and made orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility, with the child to live with her. The father was prohibited from spending time with or communicating with the child, except at times and by methods of communication requested in writing by the child to the father. The court also made extensive restraining orders against the father, preventing him from contacting the child, approaching the child or her primary residence, or contacting her school or healthcare professionals, unless specifically arranged in advance by the child. Crucially, the court made a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting the father from instituting further proceedings under the *Family Law Act* against or in relation to the mother or child without leave of the court, with specific exceptions for costs applications, appeals, and an application for a transcript. The father's application filed on 27 February 2014 was dismissed.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in circumstances marked by significant conflict and allegations of alienation. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to discharge existing parenting orders, grant the mother sole parental responsibility, and make orders regarding the father's time and communication with the child. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the mother's application for vexatious proceedings orders against the father under section 102Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).
Benjamin J discharged all previous parenting orders and made orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility, with the child to live with her. The father was prohibited from spending time with or communicating with the child, except at times and by methods of communication requested in writing by the child to the father. The court also made extensive restraining orders against the father, preventing him from contacting the child, approaching the child or her primary residence, or contacting her school or healthcare professionals, unless specifically arranged in advance by the child. Crucially, the court made a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting the father from instituting further proceedings under the *Family Law Act* against or in relation to the mother or child without leave of the court, with specific exceptions for costs applications, appeals, and an application for a transcript. The father's application filed on 27 February 2014 was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Cannon & Acres [2014] FamCA 104
Most Recent Citation
Infeld & Oberlin [2022] FedCFamC2F 1584
Cases Citing This Decision
30
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v McCardle (No 2)
[2024] SASCFC 4
Wray & Wray
[2021] FamCA 117
Meadows & Meadows (No 4)
[2020] FamCA 864
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
10
Jones v Cusack
[1992] HCA 40
Jones v Cusack
[1992] HCA 40
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No 2)
[2009] FCA 398