Connors and Prichard

Case

[2016] FamCA 1114

22 December 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Connors and Prichard [2016] FamCA 1114 [2016] FamCA 1114 22 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Connors and Prichard*, heard by Carew J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2008. The orders addressed issues of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the father's time and communication with the child.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the child, considering the welfare and best interests of the child. This involved deciding who would have sole parental responsibility, where the child would live, and the nature and extent of the father's contact with the child, including provisions for supervised time and communication.

Carew J ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the child live with her. The father's time with the child was significantly restricted, to be exercised on alternate Saturdays for a maximum of eight hours, supervised by a person nominated by the Children's Contact Centre. Further provisions were made for make-up time, telephone contact on the child's birthday, and the sending of cards and gifts. The court also made orders regarding the equal and sole bearing of costs associated with supervised time, the father's liberty to attend supervised time with family members, and the exchange of residential and contact details between the parents. Crucially, the court requested the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to undertake a full assessment of the mother's living conditions and any associated risks, noting that the mother was not considered a reliable source of information. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and outstanding applications were dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Jurisdiction

  • Natural Justice

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

2

Baghti & Baghti [2015] FamCAFC 71
M v M [1988] HCA 68
Attorney-General v Fardon [2003] QSC 379