Hunter & Berg
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 1051
•15 December 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hunter & Berg [2017] FamCA 1051
[2017] FamCA 1051
15 December 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Hunter & Berg*, Tree J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a mother and father concerning parenting orders for their two children, B and C, both born in 2008. The specific nature of the dispute leading to these orders is not detailed, but the court's final orders indicate a significant departure from previous arrangements.
The central legal issues before the court were the determination of where the children should live, who should hold parental responsibility for them, and the extent of the father's future time and communication with the children. The court was also required to consider whether to restrain the father from removing the children from specified locations and the role of the Independent Children's Lawyer.
Tree J's reasoning, as reflected in the orders, indicates a decision to grant the mother sole parental responsibility and to order that the children live with her. The court significantly restricted the father's contact, stipulating that he is to spend no time with the children and is not to communicate with them unless agreed to in writing by the mother. Furthermore, the father was restrained from removing the children from their home, school, or any other location without the mother's written consent. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged with the court's thanks.
Consequently, all previous parenting orders were discharged. The children were ordered to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father's time and communication with the children were severely limited, subject to the mother's written agreement, and he was restrained from removing the children without her consent. All other pending applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the active list.
The central legal issues before the court were the determination of where the children should live, who should hold parental responsibility for them, and the extent of the father's future time and communication with the children. The court was also required to consider whether to restrain the father from removing the children from specified locations and the role of the Independent Children's Lawyer.
Tree J's reasoning, as reflected in the orders, indicates a decision to grant the mother sole parental responsibility and to order that the children live with her. The court significantly restricted the father's contact, stipulating that he is to spend no time with the children and is not to communicate with them unless agreed to in writing by the mother. Furthermore, the father was restrained from removing the children from their home, school, or any other location without the mother's written consent. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged with the court's thanks.
Consequently, all previous parenting orders were discharged. The children were ordered to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father's time and communication with the children were severely limited, subject to the mother's written agreement, and he was restrained from removing the children without her consent. All other pending applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the active list.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hunter & Berg [2017] FamCA 1051
Most Recent Citation
Keaton & Dallas [2023] FedCFamC1F 558
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Beadel & Beadel
[2021] FamCA 591
ORMANDY & MONTEITH
[2019] FamCA 728
MORRISH & LUKESON
[2019] FamCA 239
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Banks & Banks
[2015] FamCAFC 36
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30
S v Australian Crime Commission
[2005] FCA 1310