Frost and Frost & Ors
Case
•
[2018] FamCA 727
•13 September 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Frost and Frost & Ors [2018] FamCA 727
[2018] FamCA 727
13 September 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Family Court of Australia, Johnston J considered applications concerning the parenting of two children, B and C. The father, who is incarcerated following a conviction for child sex offences, sought orders for shared parental responsibility, communication, and future contact. The paternal grandmother and aunt also sought orders for time with the children. The mother opposed these applications, seeking to limit contact from the paternal family to letters, cards, and gifts, and expressing concern about the children's exposure to differing views on their father's incarceration. The mother also applied to dismiss the paternal aunt's application for standing.
The court was required to determine whether the paternal aunt had standing to make an application for a parenting order under section 65C(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Furthermore, the court had to consider the best interests of the children in determining the appropriate parenting arrangements, including the extent of parental responsibility, where the children would live, and the nature and extent of any contact or communication with the father and other paternal family members, particularly in light of the father's conviction and incarceration.
Regarding standing, the court found that section 65C(c) should not be interpreted narrowly. Although the relationship between the aunt and the children was not described as close, the court determined that, in a broad sense, she was a person concerned with the care, welfare, and development of the children, and therefore dismissed the mother's application. In relation to the parenting orders, the court reasoned that it was in the best interests of the children to support the mother as their primary carer and to maintain the sibling relationship. The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility, with the children to live with her. The father, paternal grandmother, and aunt were permitted to send cards, gifts, and letters to the children, but were otherwise restrained from approaching or contacting them, except as initiated by the mother. The mother was also ordered to facilitate therapeutic counselling for the children.
The court was required to determine whether the paternal aunt had standing to make an application for a parenting order under section 65C(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Furthermore, the court had to consider the best interests of the children in determining the appropriate parenting arrangements, including the extent of parental responsibility, where the children would live, and the nature and extent of any contact or communication with the father and other paternal family members, particularly in light of the father's conviction and incarceration.
Regarding standing, the court found that section 65C(c) should not be interpreted narrowly. Although the relationship between the aunt and the children was not described as close, the court determined that, in a broad sense, she was a person concerned with the care, welfare, and development of the children, and therefore dismissed the mother's application. In relation to the parenting orders, the court reasoned that it was in the best interests of the children to support the mother as their primary carer and to maintain the sibling relationship. The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility, with the children to live with her. The father, paternal grandmother, and aunt were permitted to send cards, gifts, and letters to the children, but were otherwise restrained from approaching or contacting them, except as initiated by the mother. The mother was also ordered to facilitate therapeutic counselling for the children.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Frost and Frost & Ors [2018] FamCA 727
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1
Sayer v Radcliffe
[2012] FamCAFC 209
Sayer v Radcliffe
[2012] FamCAFC 209