DENMAN & CARUSO (No.3)

Case

[2020] FCCA 1126

14 May 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
DENMAN & CARUSO (No.3) [2020] FCCA 1126 [2020] FCCA 1126 14 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Denman & Caruso (No.3)*, Judge Obradovic of the Family Court of Australia considered final parenting orders concerning two children, X (born 2008) and Y (born 2012). The dispute involved serious allegations of sexual, psychological, and physical abuse perpetrated by the mother against the children.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, specifically addressing the level of contact, if any, the mother should have with them, and the allocation of parental responsibility. Furthermore, the court had to consider the implications of the findings on the children's schooling, extracurricular activities, and international travel, as well as the question of costs.

Applying the paramountcy principle that the best interests of the children are the primary consideration, the court found that the mother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to X and Y. This conclusion was informed by the evidence presented regarding the alleged abuse. Consequently, the court discharged all prior parenting orders and made new orders granting the father sole parental responsibility. The children were ordered to live with the father and have no time with the mother. The mother was also restrained from attending the children's school and extracurricular activities without the father's written agreement.

The court further ordered that the father would have sole parental responsibility for the children's passports, permitting them to travel internationally without the mother's consent. Finally, the mother was ordered to pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father's costs, totalling $22,883.90.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

13

Statutory Material Cited

3

Poisat & Poisat [2014] FamCAFC 128
CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67
F & C [2004] FamCA 568