Gunasekara and Gemunu
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 131
•23 January 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Gunasekara and Gemunu [2018] FCCA 131
[2018] FCCA 131
23 January 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Gunasekara and Gemunu*, heard by Judge Harland, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for three children, X, Y, and Z. The court was required to determine the primary caregiver for the children, where they would live, and the nature and extent of the father's time and communication with them. Additionally, the court addressed orders preventing the children from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia.
The court's reasoning focused on establishing a parenting regime that prioritised the children's best interests. This involved a phased approach to the father's contact, commencing with a period of no contact, followed by supervised telephone calls, and then gradually increasing supervised face-to-face time. The orders also stipulated specific arrangements for school holidays, birthdays, and handovers, with provisions for the father to bear the costs of supervision. Crucially, the court issued orders restraining the parties and the children from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia until a specified date, with the Australian Federal Police directed to place the children's names on the Watchlist.
The final orders granted the mother sole parental responsibility and determined that the children would live with her. The father's time and communication with the children were to be facilitated through a structured, progressive schedule, including supervised contact and specific holiday arrangements. The court also mandated that the father undertake a Men's Behavioural Change course and provided for the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer after six months. The property proceedings were adjourned for a mention hearing.
The court's reasoning focused on establishing a parenting regime that prioritised the children's best interests. This involved a phased approach to the father's contact, commencing with a period of no contact, followed by supervised telephone calls, and then gradually increasing supervised face-to-face time. The orders also stipulated specific arrangements for school holidays, birthdays, and handovers, with provisions for the father to bear the costs of supervision. Crucially, the court issued orders restraining the parties and the children from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia until a specified date, with the Australian Federal Police directed to place the children's names on the Watchlist.
The final orders granted the mother sole parental responsibility and determined that the children would live with her. The father's time and communication with the children were to be facilitated through a structured, progressive schedule, including supervised contact and specific holiday arrangements. The court also mandated that the father undertake a Men's Behavioural Change course and provided for the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer after six months. The property proceedings were adjourned for a mention hearing.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Gunasekara and Gemunu [2018] FCCA 131
Most Recent Citation
GEMUNU & GUNASEKARA (No.2) [2019] FCCA 344
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
5
Bell & Nahos
[2016] FamCAFC 244
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon
[2003] HCA 48
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon
[2003] HCA 48