CRIBB & LANKESTER
Case
•
[2017] FCCA 1629
•10 July 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Cribb and Lankester [2017] FCCA 1629
[2017] FCCA 1629
10 July 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a dispute between the Father and the Mother regarding the future care arrangements for their child, [X]. The Honourable Justice Purdon-Sully presided over the proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the child, the allocation of parental responsibility, and the nature and extent of contact the Mother would have with the child, particularly in light of concerns that necessitated significant restrictions. The court also had to consider the child's schooling, the exchange of information between the parents, and the potential for past conduct to warrant further investigation.
In reaching its decision, the court discharged all previous orders and parenting plans. It ordered that the child live with the Father and that the Father have sole parental responsibility. A six-month moratorium on the child seeing the Mother was imposed, followed by a period of supervised contact, with the Mother bearing the costs of supervision. The court then outlined a phased approach to increasing the Mother's unsupervised time with the child over a subsequent twelve-month period, before establishing a more regular, albeit still alternate weekend, schedule. Further orders addressed communication between the parents regarding the child's health and education, restrictions on discussing proceedings in the child's presence, and the liberty of the Father to change the child's school. The court also directed that the child's passport be delivered to the Father and that a Family Consultant explain the orders to the child. Finally, the court referred the matter for investigation into a possible breach of section 121 of the *Family Law Act 1975* by the Mother.
The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the child, the allocation of parental responsibility, and the nature and extent of contact the Mother would have with the child, particularly in light of concerns that necessitated significant restrictions. The court also had to consider the child's schooling, the exchange of information between the parents, and the potential for past conduct to warrant further investigation.
In reaching its decision, the court discharged all previous orders and parenting plans. It ordered that the child live with the Father and that the Father have sole parental responsibility. A six-month moratorium on the child seeing the Mother was imposed, followed by a period of supervised contact, with the Mother bearing the costs of supervision. The court then outlined a phased approach to increasing the Mother's unsupervised time with the child over a subsequent twelve-month period, before establishing a more regular, albeit still alternate weekend, schedule. Further orders addressed communication between the parents regarding the child's health and education, restrictions on discussing proceedings in the child's presence, and the liberty of the Father to change the child's school. The court also directed that the child's passport be delivered to the Father and that a Family Consultant explain the orders to the child. Finally, the court referred the matter for investigation into a possible breach of section 121 of the *Family Law Act 1975* by the Mother.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Breach
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Cribb and Lankester [2017] FCCA 1629
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
2
Galvin v The Queen
[2006] NSWCCA 66
Papakosmas v The Queen
[1999] HCA 37
Papakosmas v The Queen
[1999] HCA 37