Foris and Samaras

Case

[2018] FCCA 655

23 March 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Foris and Samaras [2018] FCCA 655 [2018] FCCA 655 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Foris and Samaras*, heard by Judge Monahan, the dispute concerned proposed international travel of the parties' two children with their mother during the 2018/2019 long summer school holidays. The father sought to prevent this travel, while the mother wished to take the children to a specified country.

The court was required to determine whether the mother should be permitted to travel with the children to the specified country for the 2018/2019 long summer school holidays. This involved considering the implications of such travel on existing parenting orders and the best interests of the children.

Judge Monahan reasoned that the mother should provide a definitive written response to the father regarding her intention to travel by a specific date. If the mother elected to travel, certain provisions of previous orders would be suspended, and the children would spend time with her, including permission to travel internationally to the specified country. The court noted that these orders were made following a discrete issues final hearing and were to be read in conjunction with prior orders. The court also highlighted the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* concerning the particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention.

The court ordered that the mother advise the father in writing by 30 June 2018 as to her intention to travel with the children to the specified country for the 2018/2019 long summer school holidays. If she intended to travel, the children would spend time with her and be permitted to travel to that country during that period, with specific prior orders being suspended. All other extant applications were dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

2