Jell and Jell
Case
•
[2009] FamCA 960
•6 October 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jell and Jell [2009] FamCA 960
[2009] FamCA 960
6 October 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Jell and Jell*, heard by Rose J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in January 2000. The orders addressed the allocation of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the time the child would spend with each parent, as well as provisions for communication, information sharing, and the facilitation of relationships between the child and each parent and their extended families.
The court was required to determine the specific terms of shared parental responsibility, including long-term decision-making regarding the child's education, health, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. Further issues included the allocation of day-to-day care responsibilities, the child's primary residence, and the detailed schedule for the child's time with the non-resident parent, encompassing regular periods, school holidays, and special occasions. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between parents and the child, the exchange of information concerning the child's welfare and medical needs, and the attendance of both parents at the child's activities.
Rose J made orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility for long-term decisions, while granting sole responsibility for day-to-day care to the parent with whom the child was residing at that time. The child was ordered to live with the father, with specific, detailed arrangements for the child to spend time with the mother, including provisions for school holidays and special days. The orders also mandated that each parent facilitate communication between the child and the other parent, and share relevant information regarding the child's health and schooling. Crucially, both parents were restrained from denigrating the other parent in the child's presence, and were to endeavour to foster a positive relationship between the child and each parent's extended family. Notations to the orders included agreements regarding the child learning Auslan and the potential for the maternal grandparents to spend time with the child.
The court was required to determine the specific terms of shared parental responsibility, including long-term decision-making regarding the child's education, health, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. Further issues included the allocation of day-to-day care responsibilities, the child's primary residence, and the detailed schedule for the child's time with the non-resident parent, encompassing regular periods, school holidays, and special occasions. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between parents and the child, the exchange of information concerning the child's welfare and medical needs, and the attendance of both parents at the child's activities.
Rose J made orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility for long-term decisions, while granting sole responsibility for day-to-day care to the parent with whom the child was residing at that time. The child was ordered to live with the father, with specific, detailed arrangements for the child to spend time with the mother, including provisions for school holidays and special days. The orders also mandated that each parent facilitate communication between the child and the other parent, and share relevant information regarding the child's health and schooling. Crucially, both parents were restrained from denigrating the other parent in the child's presence, and were to endeavour to foster a positive relationship between the child and each parent's extended family. Notations to the orders included agreements regarding the child learning Auslan and the potential for the maternal grandparents to spend time with the child.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Jell and Jell [2009] FamCA 960
Most Recent Citation
Welke and CSR (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 2
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Futhem Pty Ltd v Mills
[2012] NSWDC 127
Spillane v Curr
[2011] NSWDC 150
Welke and CSR (SSAT Appeal)
[2011] FMCAfam 2
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1