Dautel and Dautel

This case concerned parenting orders made by Judge Young in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved the mother and father of three children, X, Y, and Z, regarding their living arrangements, time spent with each parent, and parental responsibility. The court was required to determine these matters in light of the children's best interests, considering various factors including their maturity, the parents' backgrounds, and any history of family violence.

The court was tasked with determining the extent of parental responsibility, where the children would live, and the specific arrangements for them to spend time with each parent. Additionally, the court needed to address communication protocols between the parents and concerning the children, as well as the entitlement of each parent to obtain information from professionals involved in the children's care and education. The court also considered whether to issue injunctions to protect the children from certain behaviours.

Judge Young ordered that the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, requiring them to make genuine efforts to jointly decide on significant long-term issues such as education, upbringing, health, and names. If joint decisions could not be reached, the parties were to participate in family dispute resolution. The children were ordered to live with the father, commencing by a specified date. The mother was to spend time with the children during specified periods of Queensland school holidays, with options for different durations based on notice, and at other agreed times when the mother was in the same locality. The court also made orders regarding travel costs, communication between parents and children, and the sharing of information from schools and health professionals. Injunctions were issued restraining the parents from using physical discipline, discussing inappropriate adult issues with the children, or denigrating each other in the children's presence. The independent children's lawyer was discharged, and the parties were ordered to pay their respective shares of the independent children's lawyer's costs.