Hawkins and Warren
Case
•
[2010] FamCA 884
•13 September 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hawkins and Warren [2010] FamCA 884
[2010] FamCA 884
13 September 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Hawkins and Warren*, heard by Mushin J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in August 2002. The specific nature of the dispute leading to the application is not detailed, but the court's orders indicate a significant shift in the child's living arrangements and parental responsibilities.
The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders for the child, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the nature and extent of contact between the child and the father. The court also had to consider the implications of previous parenting orders and whether they should be discharged.
Mushin J ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders concerning the child. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for all matters relating to the child, and the child was ordered to live with the mother. The father was authorised to communicate with the child in writing, through gifts, and via electronic means as reasonably agreed between the parties. Crucially, no face-to-face time between the father and the child was to occur unless agreed in writing by both parents, though the father retained liberty to apply to the court for orders seeking face-to-face time. All other applications were dismissed.
The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders for the child, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the nature and extent of contact between the child and the father. The court also had to consider the implications of previous parenting orders and whether they should be discharged.
Mushin J ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders concerning the child. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for all matters relating to the child, and the child was ordered to live with the mother. The father was authorised to communicate with the child in writing, through gifts, and via electronic means as reasonably agreed between the parties. Crucially, no face-to-face time between the father and the child was to occur unless agreed in writing by both parents, though the father retained liberty to apply to the court for orders seeking face-to-face time. All other applications were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hawkins and Warren [2010] FamCA 884
Cases Citing This Decision
0