Gladstone and Gladstone
Case
•
[2016] FamCA 1166
•9 December 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Gladstone and Gladstone [2016] FamCA 1166
[2016] FamCA 1166
9 December 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Gill J heard applications made by the father concerning his three children, M, W, and C. The father sought various orders, including the suspension of time between himself and C, restraints on his approach to C's school and sporting events, and permission for C to travel to Europe with the mother. He also sought to restrain the mother regarding medical, psychological, or psychiatric attendances on the children, and in relation to the father's collection of C from school, the mother's contact with Mr T at C's school, and the mother's contact with the children and attendance at the father's home.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the father's applications for various restraining orders and the suspension of time, and how to best manage the children's educational and health needs. The court was required to consider the welfare of the children in determining these applications.
Gill J refused the majority of the father's applications, including the application to suspend time between the father and C, and the applications to restrain the father from approaching C's school and attending C's sporting events. The application for C to travel to Europe with the mother was also refused. However, by consent, the parties were ordered to facilitate an in-house educational assessment for M at F School with Mr I, a school psychologist. The parties were also ordered to follow any recommendations made by Mr I for further assessment or medical treatment for M. Furthermore, in relation to health assessments for any of the children, the parent arranging such an assessment was required to promptly inform the other parent of the treating practitioner, the purpose of the attendance, and provide authority for disclosure of information.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the father's applications for various restraining orders and the suspension of time, and how to best manage the children's educational and health needs. The court was required to consider the welfare of the children in determining these applications.
Gill J refused the majority of the father's applications, including the application to suspend time between the father and C, and the applications to restrain the father from approaching C's school and attending C's sporting events. The application for C to travel to Europe with the mother was also refused. However, by consent, the parties were ordered to facilitate an in-house educational assessment for M at F School with Mr I, a school psychologist. The parties were also ordered to follow any recommendations made by Mr I for further assessment or medical treatment for M. Furthermore, in relation to health assessments for any of the children, the parent arranging such an assessment was required to promptly inform the other parent of the treating practitioner, the purpose of the attendance, and provide authority for disclosure of information.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1