HORNER & HORNER
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 779
•21 September 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
HORNER & HORNER [2017] FamCA 779
[2017] FamCA 779
21 September 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Horner & Horner*, Tree J of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning the parenting arrangements for a child born in 2014. The proceedings involved the mother and father of the child, with an Independent Children's Lawyer also appointed. The dispute centred on the parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time the child would spend with each parent, as well as communication protocols between the parents and with the child.
The court was required to determine the extent to which prior parenting orders should be discharged, who should have sole parental responsibility for the child, and where the child should live. Further issues included the specific arrangements for the child's time with the father and his family, including the progression of unsupervised time and the location of changeovers. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between the father and the child, and between the parents themselves, as well as the disclosure of information regarding the child's education and healthcare.
Tree J ordered the discharge of most prior parenting orders, save for those relating to the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer, restraint on international travel, the Airport Watch List, the appointment of a supervisor for time with the father, and the provision for unsupervised time with the father. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with her. The orders then detailed a phased approach to the child spending time with the father, commencing with supervised time and gradually increasing to unsupervised overnight stays, with specific conditions and timelines for each phase. Provisions were also made for the child's birthday and Boxing Day, and for communication between the father and child via Skype, with strict limitations on the topics of discussion. The parents were directed to communicate only by phone in emergencies and to use a designated online program for other communication, with specific requirements for information sharing regarding the child's welfare and education.
The court was required to determine the extent to which prior parenting orders should be discharged, who should have sole parental responsibility for the child, and where the child should live. Further issues included the specific arrangements for the child's time with the father and his family, including the progression of unsupervised time and the location of changeovers. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between the father and the child, and between the parents themselves, as well as the disclosure of information regarding the child's education and healthcare.
Tree J ordered the discharge of most prior parenting orders, save for those relating to the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer, restraint on international travel, the Airport Watch List, the appointment of a supervisor for time with the father, and the provision for unsupervised time with the father. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with her. The orders then detailed a phased approach to the child spending time with the father, commencing with supervised time and gradually increasing to unsupervised overnight stays, with specific conditions and timelines for each phase. Provisions were also made for the child's birthday and Boxing Day, and for communication between the father and child via Skype, with strict limitations on the topics of discussion. The parents were directed to communicate only by phone in emergencies and to use a designated online program for other communication, with specific requirements for information sharing regarding the child's welfare and education.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
HORNER & HORNER [2017] FamCA 779
Most Recent Citation
Horner and Horner [2019] FamCA 410
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30
S v Australian Crime Commission
[2005] FCA 1310
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30