Grainger and Grainger
Case
•
[2019] FamCA 56
•11 February 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Grainger and Grainger [2019] FamCA 56
[2019] FamCA 56
11 February 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Grainger and Grainger*, Baumann J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered parenting and property matters between the parents of a child, L. The dispute concerned the future living arrangements and decision-making responsibilities for L, as well as the variation of existing property orders.
The court was required to determine the primary residence of the child, L, and the extent of parental responsibility to be allocated to each parent, particularly concerning significant long-term decisions. Additionally, the court needed to address the father's involvement in the child's life, including communication, travel, and education, and to consider the variation of previously made property orders.
Baumann J ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The child, L, was to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions. However, the mother was required to consult the father in writing at least fourteen days prior to making decisions regarding relocation outside F Town, New South Wales, changing the child's surname, changing the child's school after home schooling ceased, or travelling overseas with the child. The court also made detailed provisions for communication between the parents regarding the child's contact details, school progress, and any serious illness or hospitalisation. The father was to be permitted to send gifts and cards to the child, and the mother was to encourage the child to respond. The mother was permitted to travel overseas with the child and to apply for and renew the child's passport, provided she informed the father of travel dates and destinations fourteen days in advance. The Independent Children's Lawyer was directed to provide certain documents to the Department of Family and Community Services and was subsequently discharged, with liberty to seek costs. Finally, existing property orders were varied.
The court was required to determine the primary residence of the child, L, and the extent of parental responsibility to be allocated to each parent, particularly concerning significant long-term decisions. Additionally, the court needed to address the father's involvement in the child's life, including communication, travel, and education, and to consider the variation of previously made property orders.
Baumann J ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The child, L, was to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions. However, the mother was required to consult the father in writing at least fourteen days prior to making decisions regarding relocation outside F Town, New South Wales, changing the child's surname, changing the child's school after home schooling ceased, or travelling overseas with the child. The court also made detailed provisions for communication between the parents regarding the child's contact details, school progress, and any serious illness or hospitalisation. The father was to be permitted to send gifts and cards to the child, and the mother was to encourage the child to respond. The mother was permitted to travel overseas with the child and to apply for and renew the child's passport, provided she informed the father of travel dates and destinations fourteen days in advance. The Independent Children's Lawyer was directed to provide certain documents to the Department of Family and Community Services and was subsequently discharged, with liberty to seek costs. Finally, existing property orders were varied.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Grainger and Grainger [2019] FamCA 56
Most Recent Citation
Grainger & Grainger [2023] FedCFamC1F 490
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
1
Grainger & Grainger
[2015] FamCA 276
Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte
[2017] HCA 8