HAYLES & DALKEITH
Case
•
[2020] FCCA 751
•3 April 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hayles and Dalkeith [2020] FCCA 751
[2020] FCCA 751
3 April 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Hayles & Dalkeith*, heard before Judge Small, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children, X and Y. The proceedings sought to vary existing consent orders made on 14 August 2019.
The court was required to determine issues relating to parental responsibility, specifically concerning the children's education and choice of general medical practitioner. Further, the court considered the conditions under which the mother could spend time with the children, including the requirement for substantial attendance by maternal grandparents, and the circumstances under which the mother would be permitted to travel overseas with the children. The court also addressed the mother's undertaking of drug testing.
Judge Small made orders that modified the existing consent orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for the children's education and choice of general medical practitioner, with equal shared parental responsibility otherwise. The requirement for substantial attendance by maternal grandparents during the mother's time with the children was removed, subject to a condition. This condition stipulated that if the mother's hair follicle drug tests indicated illicit substance use, her time with the children would require the substantial attendance of the maternal grandmother until she provided a clear test for the preceding six months. The mother was also enjoined from removing the children from Australia without the father's written consent and was required to provide significant notice and detailed information if such consent was granted for overseas travel.
The court ordered that the mother undertake hair follicle drug testing at the father's expense at six-month intervals for three years, with specific requirements regarding hair length and treatment to ensure the integrity of the testing. All extant applications were dismissed.
The court was required to determine issues relating to parental responsibility, specifically concerning the children's education and choice of general medical practitioner. Further, the court considered the conditions under which the mother could spend time with the children, including the requirement for substantial attendance by maternal grandparents, and the circumstances under which the mother would be permitted to travel overseas with the children. The court also addressed the mother's undertaking of drug testing.
Judge Small made orders that modified the existing consent orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for the children's education and choice of general medical practitioner, with equal shared parental responsibility otherwise. The requirement for substantial attendance by maternal grandparents during the mother's time with the children was removed, subject to a condition. This condition stipulated that if the mother's hair follicle drug tests indicated illicit substance use, her time with the children would require the substantial attendance of the maternal grandmother until she provided a clear test for the preceding six months. The mother was also enjoined from removing the children from Australia without the father's written consent and was required to provide significant notice and detailed information if such consent was granted for overseas travel.
The court ordered that the mother undertake hair follicle drug testing at the father's expense at six-month intervals for three years, with specific requirements regarding hair length and treatment to ensure the integrity of the testing. All extant applications were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
-
Offer and Acceptance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hayles and Dalkeith [2020] FCCA 751
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
3
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 36
Mazorski & Albright
[2007] FamCA 520