Grollo & Bilson (No 2)
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 440
•26 June 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Grollo & Bilson (No 2) [2017] FamCA 440
[2017] FamCA 440
26 June 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Grollo & Bilson (No 2), Cronin J considered parenting orders concerning two children, B and C. While some issues were resolved by consent, particularly those relating to the teenagers' preferences, the court was required to determine the appropriateness of other proposed orders.
The central legal issues before the court were how to allocate parental responsibility for major long-term decisions concerning the children's education and health, where the children should live, and whether to grant the father permission to travel internationally with the children. The court also had to consider injunctions to prevent parental denigration and the continuation of psychological support for the children.
Cronin J discharged all existing parenting orders. The court made orders for the father to have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions regarding the children's education and health, with an obligation to inform the mother of any such decisions. For all other major long-term decisions, the parents were to have equal shared parental responsibility. The children were ordered to live with the father forthwith. Injunctions were imposed restraining both parents from denigrating the other to or in the presence of the children. The father was ordered to continue to fund the children's attendance with a psychologist, and he was granted permission to take the children internationally. The mother was granted leave to apply for further parenting orders concerning her time and communication with the children if any agreement on these issues broke down. The court also made detailed provisions regarding the particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders, as set out in an attached Fact Sheet, and discharged the Independent Children's Lawyer.
The central legal issues before the court were how to allocate parental responsibility for major long-term decisions concerning the children's education and health, where the children should live, and whether to grant the father permission to travel internationally with the children. The court also had to consider injunctions to prevent parental denigration and the continuation of psychological support for the children.
Cronin J discharged all existing parenting orders. The court made orders for the father to have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions regarding the children's education and health, with an obligation to inform the mother of any such decisions. For all other major long-term decisions, the parents were to have equal shared parental responsibility. The children were ordered to live with the father forthwith. Injunctions were imposed restraining both parents from denigrating the other to or in the presence of the children. The father was ordered to continue to fund the children's attendance with a psychologist, and he was granted permission to take the children internationally. The mother was granted leave to apply for further parenting orders concerning her time and communication with the children if any agreement on these issues broke down. The court also made detailed provisions regarding the particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders, as set out in an attached Fact Sheet, and discharged the Independent Children's Lawyer.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Grollo & Bilson (No 2) [2017] FamCA 440
Most Recent Citation
Stopford Malloy & Malloy (No 3) [2017] FamCA 932
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
8
U v U
[2002] HCA 36
Taylor & Barker
[2007] FamCA 1246
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[1997] HCA 25