Infeld & Oberlin

Case [2022] FedCFamC2F 1584


Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 2)

Infeld & Oberlin [2022] FedCFamC2F 1584  

File number(s): DGC 1833 of 2018
Judgment of: JUDGE GLASS
Date of judgment: 1 December 2022
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - application to reopen proceedings – application opposed on Rice v Asplund principles – where the mother’s mental health has materially improved – where the maternal grandparents can no longer comply with orders requiring them to be in substantial attendance during the children’s time with the mother – application meets the threshold 
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CA, 60CC, 61DA(2), 102Q
Cases cited:

Cannon & Acres [2014] FamCA 104

Cao & Cao (2018) FLC 93-880

Defrey & Radnor [2021] FamCAFC 67

Defrey & Radnor (No 2) (2021) FLC 94-044

Grace & Grace (2020) FLC 93-996

Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Searson & Searson (2017) FLC 93-788

Shan & Prasad (2020) FLC 93-980

SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93-363

Division: Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs: 44
Date of last submission/s: 17 November 2022
Date of hearing: 17 November 2022
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Hannan
Solicitor for the Applicant: Sayer Jones
Counsel for the Frist Respondent: Mr Testart
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Scammell Black Mileo
Counsel for the Second & Third Respondents: Ms Devine
Solicitor for the Second & Third Respondents: Smith Family Law

ORDERS

DGC 1833 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS OBERLIN

Applicant

AND:

MR INFELD

First Respondent

MR OBERLIN

Second Respondent

MS B OBERLIN

Third Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE GLASS

DATE OF ORDER:

1 December 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Final Orders made on 10 September 2022 be suspended.

2.Until further Order, the children, X born in 2005 ("X"), Y born in 2007 (''Y") and Z born in 2010 ("Z") (collectively "the children") live with the Father.

3.X will spend time and communicate with the Mother in accordance with his wishes.

4.Until further Order, Y and Z spend time and communicate with the Mother as follows:

(a)From the date of these Orders, and during school Term 4 2022, each Sunday from 10:00am until 7:00pm;

(b)During the 2022/2023 long summer holidays:

(i)Each Thursday from 10:00am until 7:00pm;

(ii)Each Saturday from 10:00am until 7:00pm; and

(iii)Each Sunday from 10:00am until 7:00pm.

(c)Commencing from School Term 1 2023, each alternate weekend from 10:00am on Saturday until 7:00pm on Sunday;

(d)During the Term 1 2023 school term holidays, each alternate weekend from 10:00am Friday to 7:00pm on Sunday;

(e)From Term 2 2023, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday (or 10:00am if a non-school day) to 7:00pm on Sunday; and

(f)At such other times as may be agreed between the parties in writing.

5.Notwithstanding any previous provisions, Y and Z spend time with the parties on special occasions as follows:

(a)If they are not otherwise in the Mother's care:

(i)From 10:00am until 7:00pm on Mother's Day;

(ii)For 7 hours to be agreed on Christmas Day and…

Continue reading Infeld & Oberlin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Infeld & Oberlin [2022] FedCFamC2F 1584
Case
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1584
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Infeld & Oberlin, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother, Ms Oberlin, to vary existing parenting orders. The father, Mr Infeld, opposed the application, arguing it should be dismissed under the principles in Rice v Asplund. The Court had to determine whether the application should be dismissed and, if not, what interim orders were in the children's best interests.

The Court first assessed whether Ms Oberlin's application should be dismissed under the Rice v Asplund principles. These principles emphasise the importance of the paramountcy of the children's best interests and the undesirability of repeated litigation. However, the Court found that Ms Oberlin's application met the threshold for reconsideration because of significant changes in circumstances, particularly her improved mental health and the inability of her parents to supervise the children during her time with them.

The Court then considered what interim orders were in the children's best interests. Given Ms Oberlin's improved mental health and the children's desire to spend more time with her, the Court concluded that it was in their best interests to suspend the existing orders and allow them to spend more time with their mother. The Court also found that it was no longer in the children's best interests for Mr Infeld to have sole parental responsibility, as he had not complied with orders to share information with Ms Oberlin. Therefore, both parents should have parental responsibility.

The Court ordered that the existing parenting orders be suspended and that the children live with their father. The children will spend time with their mother according to a detailed schedule, increasing to alternate weekend time from the start of the next school term. Both parents were ordered to have parental responsibility for the children, and the parties were directed to attend a Dispute Resolution Conference.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.