Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Fontaine & Fontaine [2022] FedCFamC1F 658
File number(s): ADC 2502 of 2020 Judgment of: KARI J Date of judgment: 1 June 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing –Two children born of the same father but of different mothers – Where one of the children’s parenting arrangements is not in dispute – Where there has been no time-spent between the father and either child for over 12 months – Allegations of family violence between the parties – Where the Father is facing serious criminal charges - Where it is appropriate for time spending to occur at a children’s contact service - Where the Applicant asserts that the father is a risk to the child – Where supervised time-spending is ordered - costs reserved. Cases cited: Fontaine & Fontaine & Anor [2020] FCCA 3324 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 50 Date of hearing: 1 June 2022 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Ross Solicitor for the Applicant: Brian Deegan Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Dillon Solicitor for the First Respondent: Cifuentes Lawyers Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms Miller Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Debra Spizzo & Associates ORDERS
ADC 2502 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS FONTAINE
Applicant
AND: MR FONTAINE
Respondent
MS BELL
Intervener
order made by:
KARI J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 June 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9(b) of the Orders dated 8 December 2020 be discharged in relation to the child X (born in 2013) (“the child”).
2.To the extent that it is necessary the parties enrol at the Suburb Q Children's Contact Service within 14 days.
3.That the father spend supervised time with the child at the Suburb O Children's Contact Service at times and dates to be allocated by the said service on a fortnightly basis with each occasion of time spending not to exceed 2 hours, NOTING that supervised time between the father and child will be transferred to and continue at the Suburb Q Children's Contact Service at times and dates to be allocated by the said service on a fortnightly basis with each occasion of time spending not to exceed 2 hours when that service is available.
4.That upon the completion of the first six (6) visits and thereafter at six (6) visit intervals (irrespective of which service these occur at) the first respondent’s solicitor will request an observation report (or if necessary a report from each service) to be provided to the applicant’s solicitor upon receipt.
5.That the first respondent file a copy of the observation report(s) annexed to an affidavit.
6.That the first respondent pay all costs associated with the contact service and any reports provided.
7.That until further order, the father be restrained and an injunction hereby granted restraining him from:
(a)Approaching or being within 200 metres of the mother’s residence or place of employment;
(b)Approaching or being…
Continue reading Fontaine & Fontaine
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fontaine & Fontaine [2022] FedCFamC1F 658
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC1F 658
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the existing supervised time-spending arrangements should continue, given the prolonged period of non-compliance and the intervening events, particularly the dismissal of the criminal charges against the father. The court also needed to determine the appropriate arrangements for the younger child, considering her age and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.
The court found that despite the dismissal of the criminal charges, the history of non-compliance and the concerns about the safety and well-being of the children warranted the continuation of supervised time-spending. The court was concerned about the significant break in contact and the potential risks involved. The court concluded that preserving the relationship between the children and their father was important, but safety and supervision were paramount. Consequently, the court upheld the need for continued supervised contact, tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each child.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.