Johns & Jasapas
Case
•
[2016] FamCA 471
•13 June 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Johns & Jasapas [2016] FamCA 471
[2016] FamCA 471
13 June 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Johns & Jasapas* involved a dispute between the mother and father concerning parenting orders for their two children, B and C. The matter was heard by Tree J.
The court was required to determine the terms of parenting orders, including arrangements for the children's living arrangements, parental responsibility for major long-term issues and day-to-day care, and the father's time with the children. Additionally, the court needed to address issues relating to communication between the parents, the children's attendance at counselling, and the restraint of certain behaviours and discussions involving the children.
Tree J made orders discharging previous parenting arrangements and establishing equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, with the parents to utilise the Our Children’s Website for this purpose. The children were ordered to live with the mother, with each parent having sole responsibility for day-to-day decisions while the children are in their care. The father's time with the children was detailed through a phased schedule, commencing immediately and progressing through to 2019, with specific provisions for school holidays, birthdays, Father's Day, and Christmas. The orders also included provisions for changeover locations, telephone contact, mutual restraint from denigrating each other, and a prohibition on discussing proceedings with the children. Further orders mandated counselling for the children and the father, and required both parents to enrol in a Parenting Orders Program. The court also made orders regarding the publication of documents and the process for dispute resolution. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed.
The court was required to determine the terms of parenting orders, including arrangements for the children's living arrangements, parental responsibility for major long-term issues and day-to-day care, and the father's time with the children. Additionally, the court needed to address issues relating to communication between the parents, the children's attendance at counselling, and the restraint of certain behaviours and discussions involving the children.
Tree J made orders discharging previous parenting arrangements and establishing equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, with the parents to utilise the Our Children’s Website for this purpose. The children were ordered to live with the mother, with each parent having sole responsibility for day-to-day decisions while the children are in their care. The father's time with the children was detailed through a phased schedule, commencing immediately and progressing through to 2019, with specific provisions for school holidays, birthdays, Father's Day, and Christmas. The orders also included provisions for changeover locations, telephone contact, mutual restraint from denigrating each other, and a prohibition on discussing proceedings with the children. Further orders mandated counselling for the children and the father, and required both parents to enrol in a Parenting Orders Program. The court also made orders regarding the publication of documents and the process for dispute resolution. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Johns & Jasapas [2016] FamCA 471
Most Recent Citation
Jasapas & Johns (No 2) [2020] FamCAFC 203
Cases Citing This Decision
17
Giunta & Giunta (No. 3)
[2021] FamCA 272
Debona & Debona
[2021] FCCA 980
Abercrombie & Damon (No 3)
[2021] FCCA 682
Cases Cited
10
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