Hampton and Anor and Pepper

This matter came before Young J concerning an application by Mrs Hampton and Mr Hampton (as applicants) against Mr Pepper (as respondent). The dispute involved arrangements for a child born in June 1996, specifically concerning parental responsibility, living arrangements, and communication with the respondent father. Mr Hampton sought to be joined as an applicant, which the court granted.

The court was required to determine the appropriate orders regarding shared parental responsibility, the child's primary residence, and the terms of the child's time and communication with the respondent father. Further issues included the provision of information to the father regarding the child's address, schooling, and health, as well as facilitating the child's international travel and passport renewal. The court also had to address the father's potential future application to set aside the orders and the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer.

Young J made orders by consent between the mother and step-father and the Independent Children's Lawyer, though not imputing consent from the father. The court ordered shared parental responsibility between Mrs Hampton and Mr Hampton, with the child to live with Mrs Hampton. The child was to spend time and communicate with Mr Pepper as agreed by Mrs Hampton, having ascertained the child's views, and indirectly through communication with the father's relatives as the child requested. The court also made detailed provisions for communication facilities, notification of significant changes, and the father's involvement in passport matters. Liberty was reserved for the father to apply to set aside the orders by a specified date, requiring an explanation for his lack of communication and non-participation if he did so. The costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer were fixed and to be paid equally by the mother and father, with a provision for the mother and step-father to recover the father's share as a civil debt. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, subject to the father exercising his liberty to apply to set aside the orders. All other extant proceedings were dismissed.