DRIVER & DOLMAN
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 91
•24 February 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
DRIVER & DOLMAN [2017] FamCA 91
[2017] FamCA 91
24 February 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Driver & Dolman*, heard by Tree J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children. The maternal grandmother sought sole parental responsibility and orders that the children have no time spent with the father or paternal grandmother. The paternal grandmother had discontinued her response, and the father had been convicted of the murder of the children's mother.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in circumstances where the presumption under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) did not apply due to the father's conviction. The court also considered the children's Aboriginality, derived from their paternal grandfather, and the impact of the mother's murder, the father's incarceration, and estrangement from the paternal family on their opportunity to experience their culture. The maternal grandmother argued that re-introducing the children to the paternal grandmother would be emotionally distressing.
Tree J reasoned that the father's conviction for murder meant the presumption of equal parental responsibility did not apply. The court found that the children's best interests were served by the maternal grandmother having sole parental responsibility, given the traumatic circumstances and the potential for emotional distress if re-introduced to the paternal grandmother. The court acknowledged the children's Aboriginal heritage but noted that their opportunity to experience it was already significantly minimised due to the father's actions and absence.
The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The children were to live with the maternal grandmother, who was granted sole parental responsibility for all aspects of their upbringing, including medical, educational, disciplinary, social, and cultural matters, as well as their place of residence. The maternal grandmother was permitted to apply for passports for the children without the father's signature. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in circumstances where the presumption under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) did not apply due to the father's conviction. The court also considered the children's Aboriginality, derived from their paternal grandfather, and the impact of the mother's murder, the father's incarceration, and estrangement from the paternal family on their opportunity to experience their culture. The maternal grandmother argued that re-introducing the children to the paternal grandmother would be emotionally distressing.
Tree J reasoned that the father's conviction for murder meant the presumption of equal parental responsibility did not apply. The court found that the children's best interests were served by the maternal grandmother having sole parental responsibility, given the traumatic circumstances and the potential for emotional distress if re-introduced to the paternal grandmother. The court acknowledged the children's Aboriginal heritage but noted that their opportunity to experience it was already significantly minimised due to the father's actions and absence.
The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The children were to live with the maternal grandmother, who was granted sole parental responsibility for all aspects of their upbringing, including medical, educational, disciplinary, social, and cultural matters, as well as their place of residence. The maternal grandmother was permitted to apply for passports for the children without the father's signature. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
DRIVER & DOLMAN [2017] FamCA 91
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30
S v Australian Crime Commission
[2005] FCA 1310
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30