Fell and Hartell & Ors

Case

[2014] FamCA 111

7 March 2014


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Fell and Hartell & Ors [2014] FamCA 111 [2014] FamCA 111 7 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned orders made by Austin J in the Family Court of Australia regarding the parental responsibility and living arrangements for four children: C, B, D, and J. The dispute involved the applicant and the first respondent, with the second respondent also a party. The court was required to determine the future arrangements for the children, including who would have parental responsibility, where they would live, and the nature and extent of contact between the children and their parents.

The court's reasoning led to the discharge of all former orders relating to the children. The applicant was granted sole parental responsibility and the right for D and J to live with them. Specific provisions were made for supervised time between J and the first respondent, including detailed requirements for supervision, communication, and cost sharing. The orders also imposed restraints on both parties regarding contact with a Mr O, and on the applicant concerning contact with specific individuals (H, L, and M) unless personally supervised. Furthermore, both parties were restrained from inflicting corporal punishment or denigrating each other in the presence of the children.

The court also made orders regarding the communication of residential addresses and contact telephone numbers between the parties. Specific provisions were made for the provision of school reports and photograph order forms for C, B, D, and J to the relevant respondents. The children were to be delivered to Child Dispute Services to have the effect and reasons for the orders explained to them. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged upon the expiration of any applicable appeal period, and costs were reserved for 28 days. Notably, no orders were made in respect of C and B, with the first and second respondents retaining parental responsibility for them. The court also noted that the orders were not inconsistent with an apprehended domestic violence order made for the protection of C from the first respondent.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Appeal

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

3

Statutory Material Cited

1

Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 9