Ishmal and Karaja

Case

[2019] FamCA 571

1 August 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Ishmal and Karaja [2019] FamCA 571 [2019] FamCA 571 1 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ishmal and Karaja, Gill J made orders concerning the parental responsibility and living arrangements for a child, X. The dispute centred on the parents' ability to co-parent and the father's contact with X, with the mother seeking sole parental responsibility and the father's contact to be managed through therapeutic intervention. The court also addressed the mother's application to change X's name and an application made pursuant to s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the terms of the father's contact with X. Key issues included the necessity and nature of therapeutic intervention for the parents and child, the role of a contact centre in facilitating supervised time, and measures to prevent the child's removal from Australia. The court also considered the mother's application for a name change and an application under s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Gill J ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for X and that X live with the mother. The father was not entitled to spend time with X except as directed by the court. Crucially, the court mandated that both parents engage in therapy with a clinical psychologist, Dr B, to facilitate X's understanding of his father, prepare for introductions, and, if appropriate, support X in meeting and spending time with the father. The father was solely responsible for the costs of this therapy. The court also ordered the parents to engage with the Redfern Family Relationships Contact Centre for an assessment of supervised contact. Furthermore, both parents were restrained from removing X from the Commonwealth of Australia, with specific directions for the Australian Federal Police to place X on the airport watch list. The mother's application to change X's name was adjourned, and her application under s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was dismissed. The matter was adjourned for a final hearing, to be listed shortly after the completion of therapy with Dr B.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies

  • Standing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1