CURTIS & WOOTTEN

Case

[2017] FamCA 445

27 June 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
CURTIS & WOOTTEN [2017] FamCA 445 [2017] FamCA 445 27 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned parenting orders between the mother and father of two children, B and C. The dispute revolved around the arrangements for the children's time with their father, including the necessity and nature of supervised contact. The case was heard by Foster J.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders for the children, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, living arrangements, and the extent and conditions of contact between the children and their father. A key consideration was the suitability of supervised contact and the role of a Contact Centre in facilitating and overseeing this contact.

Foster J ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, and they were to live with her. Contact between the children and the father was to be supervised by a nominated Contact Centre, with both parties required to attend assessments and comply with the Centre's requirements. The father was to pay for the supervision and adhere to strict rules regarding his attendance and departure from the Contact Centre. The orders also stipulated that supervision would cease when each child turned 14, or earlier if agreed in writing, after which time with the father would be as reasonably agreed between the parents, with due regard to the children's wishes. The mother was also directed to facilitate the father's access to school reports and photo order forms and to inform him of any medical emergencies. The application for costs by the Independent Children’s Lawyer was dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

11

Statutory Material Cited

1

Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 9
Earles and Highsmith [2016] FamCA 1012