Jordan and Klemmer
Case
•
[2014] FCCA 2233
•8 October 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jordan and Klemmer [2014] FCCA 2233
[2014] FCCA 2233
8 October 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned parenting orders for three children, X, Y, and Z, and was heard by Judge Willis. The dispute involved the parents' responsibilities and the children's living arrangements and time spent with each parent.
The court was required to determine the extent of equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions concerning the children's education, health, religious and cultural upbringing, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. Additionally, the court needed to establish the children's living arrangements and the nature and extent of the father's time with the children, considering the children's best interests and the history of the parents' interactions.
Judge Willis discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders. The parties were granted equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, with specific requirements for consultation and dispute resolution. The children were ordered to live with the mother, and the father was to spend time with the children as agreed, commencing after the children attended a counselling program or in July 2015. The court noted that it was in the children's best interests to spend time with their father and ordered him to undertake counselling. The father was granted liberty to communicate with the mother regarding decision-making and arrangements for time with the children. The court also made orders regarding communication, the children's surname, and the facilitation of contact and information sharing between the parents and the children, including specific directions for the Independent Children's Lawyer to explain the father's position and the court's orders to the children. The court made findings that the mother and maternal grandmother had actively undermined the father's relationship with the children and had given false evidence regarding alleged family violence.
The court was required to determine the extent of equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions concerning the children's education, health, religious and cultural upbringing, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. Additionally, the court needed to establish the children's living arrangements and the nature and extent of the father's time with the children, considering the children's best interests and the history of the parents' interactions.
Judge Willis discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders. The parties were granted equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, with specific requirements for consultation and dispute resolution. The children were ordered to live with the mother, and the father was to spend time with the children as agreed, commencing after the children attended a counselling program or in July 2015. The court noted that it was in the children's best interests to spend time with their father and ordered him to undertake counselling. The father was granted liberty to communicate with the mother regarding decision-making and arrangements for time with the children. The court also made orders regarding communication, the children's surname, and the facilitation of contact and information sharing between the parents and the children, including specific directions for the Independent Children's Lawyer to explain the father's position and the court's orders to the children. The court made findings that the mother and maternal grandmother had actively undermined the father's relationship with the children and had given false evidence regarding alleged family violence.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Jordan and Klemmer [2014] FCCA 2233
Most Recent Citation
Norris (a pseudonym) v Hewitt (a pseudonym) [2025] VCC 545
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
2
Mazorski & Albright
[2007] FamCA 520
MRR v GR
[2010] HCA 4
Luxton v Vines
[1952] HCA 19