Gomez and Easton

Case

[2017] FamCA 31

27 January 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Gomez and Easton [2017] FamCA 31 [2017] FamCA 31 27 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Gomez and Easton*, Carew J of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning the parental responsibility, residence, and contact arrangements for two children, B and C. The dispute involved the father, Mr Gomez, and the mother, Ms Easton, regarding the future care and upbringing of their children.

The court was required to determine issues of parental responsibility, where the children would live, and the nature and extent of the mother's future contact with the children. Additionally, the court considered an application by the mother to change the children's surname.

Carew J ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children, with specific provisions for the father to inform and consider the mother's views on major long-term issues. The children were ordered to live with the father, and the mother was restrained from contacting the children's school or the children directly pending the father collecting them. The mother was also ordered to facilitate the transition of the children into the father's care. Contact between the mother and children was to be supervised at a contact centre, with specific arrangements for initial supervised visits and subsequent fortnightly contact. The mother's application to change the children's surname was dismissed. All extant applications were dismissed, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged. The orders also included provisions for information sharing between the parents regarding the children's health and education, and a fact sheet detailing the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders was attached.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Injunction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

2

Baghti & Baghti [2015] FamCAFC 71
M v M [1988] HCA 68
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34