ERICSSON & ERICSSON (No.2)

Case [2015] FCCA 3146


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ERICSSON & ERICSSON (No.2) [2015] FCCA 3146
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – shared parental responsibility – change in circumstances.
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – summary dismissal – best interests of children.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.11F, 60B, 60CA, 60CC

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.10

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
SPS & PLS [2008] FamCAFC 16
Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152
Applicant: MR ERICSSON
Respondent: MS ERICSSON
File Number: DGC 1317 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Phipps
Hearing date: 22 September 2015
Date of Last Submission: 22 September 2015
Delivered at: Dandenong
Delivered on: 27 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Dr O’Brien
Solicitors for the Applicant: Elisa Rothschild Lawyer
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Jenkins
Solicitors for the Respondent: Rockman & Rockman

ORDERS

  1. The Initiating Application filed 14 August 2015 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ericsson & Ericsson (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 1317 of 2013

MR ERICSSON

Applicant

And

MS ERICSSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

  1. The applicant father, Mr Ericsson, and the respondent mother, Ms Ericsson, have three children X born (omitted) 2003, Y born (omitted) 2006 and Z born (omitted) 2008.  After a contested hearing I made final orders on 18 December 2014.  The children’s orders are as follows:

  2. That the wife have sole parental responsibility for the children of the marriage X born (omitted) 2003, Y born (omitted) 2006 and Z born (omitted) 2008 (“the children”), in regard to the children’s education (both current and future) and health save that the mother shall, prior to making the sole ultimate decision about any such issue:

    (a)Use her best endeavours to advise the father in writing of the decision intended to be made;

    (b)Seek the father’s written response in relation thereto;

    (c)Consider, by reference to the best interests of the children, any such response prior to making any such decision;

    (d)Advise the father in writing as soon as reasonably practicable of her ultimate decision.

  3. That other than in paragraph (1) the parties have equal shared responsibility for the children.

  4. That the children live with the wife.

  5. That the children spend time and communicate with the husband during the school term as follows:

    (a)Each alternate weekend from after school or like time on Friday to 5.00pm Sunday;

    (b)Each alternate Thursday from after school or like time to 7.00pm;

    (c)As otherwise agreed in writing between the parties.

  6. That the children spend time and communicate with the husband during (religion omitted) festivals as follows:

    (a)In each even numbered year for the first 2 days of (omitted), the 2 days of (omitted), the 1 day of (omitted) and the last 2 days of (omitted) which are otherwise known as (omitted) and (omitted); and

    (b)In each odd numbered year for the last 2 days of (omitted), the 2 days of (omitted) and the first 2 days…

Continue reading ERICSSON & ERICSSON (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ericsson and Ericsson (No.2) [2015] FCCA 3146
Case
[2015] FCCA 3146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceeding concerned an Initiating Application filed by Ericsson & Ericsson (No.2) on 14 August 2015. The specific nature of the dispute and the opposing party are not detailed in the provided text. The decision was made by Judge Phipps.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the Initiating Application filed by Ericsson & Ericsson (No.2). The court was required to consider the merits of this application and decide whether it should be upheld or dismissed.

Judge Phipps dismissed the Initiating Application. No further reasoning or legal principles applied are provided in the excerpt.

The court ordered that the Initiating Application filed 14 August 2015 is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Initiating Application filed 14 August 2015 is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.