Finnegan and Snowden

Case

[2018] FCCA 255

26 February 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Finnegan and Snowden [2018] FCCA 255 [2018] FCCA 255 26 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Finnegan and Snowden, heard by Judge Altobelli, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children, X and Y. The orders addressed issues of parental responsibility, the children's residence, and the time the children would spend with each parent.

The court was required to determine the specific arrangements for the children's long-term decision-making, their primary residence, and the quantum and nature of the time they would spend with each parent, including provisions for regular contact, holidays, and specific events. The court also had to consider geographical limitations on the father's time with the children and establish protocols for communication and the exchange of information regarding the children's welfare.

Judge Altobelli made orders granting the Mother sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions concerning the children's care, welfare, and development, with an exception for any decision to relocate the children more than 30 kilometres from the father's residence. The children were ordered to live with the Mother, and detailed provisions were set out for the Father's time with the children, which would progressively increase from short periods to alternate weekends and mid-week contact. These arrangements included specific times for holidays, Father's Day, and Christmas, with a provision for the father's time to be suspended on Mother's Day. The court also stipulated that the children's time with the Father would occur within 100 kilometres of his current address and included orders regarding communication, the provision of school reports, and a prohibition against denigrating the other parent in the children's presence.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

2

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4