Hayman and Chesterton

This matter concerned the parenting arrangements for the child K Hayman, born in June 2008. The parties, the mother and the father, presented a consent order to the court for approval. The dispute revolved around the terms of these parenting arrangements, particularly concerning the child's residence, parental responsibility, and the father's time with the child, including relocation of the child and supervision requirements. The decision was made by Murphy J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether to approve the consent orders as presented by the parties. Specifically, the court needed to consider the provisions relating to the child living with the mother, the mother having sole parental responsibility, the mother's relocation with the child to Melbourne, and the detailed arrangements for the father's time with the child, both in Brisbane and Melbourne. A significant issue was the extent and duration of supervision required for the father's time with the child, as well as prohibitions on certain individuals being alone with the child.

Murphy J made orders by consent, approving the Minutes of Order. The court ordered that the child live with the mother, who would have sole parental responsibility and be permitted to relocate with the child to Melbourne. The father's time with the child was detailed, with specific provisions for contact in Brisbane and Melbourne, including notice periods, travel arrangements, and the mother's presence during visits. The court also ordered that the father's time with the child be supervised by the mother for the next five years, with potential for an additional three years of supervision under certain conditions, and that the father be accompanied by one of his parents during these visits. Further orders included prohibitions on denigration of either parent, being under the influence of drugs, and allowing specific individuals to be alone with the child. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, subpoenaed documents were to be returned, and the matter was removed from the pending cases list.