Kennedy and Masuyo
Case
•
[2012] FamCA 471
•18 June 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
KENNEDY & MASUYO
[2012] FamCA 471
[2012] FamCA 471
18 June 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned parenting orders made by Watts J. The dispute involved the father and mother of two children, D and L, regarding the parental responsibility and time arrangements for each child.
The court was required to determine the specific terms of parental responsibility for each child, including who would have sole parental responsibility and the conditions under which each parent would spend time with the children. Further issues included the location and conditions for the children's time with their parents, particularly concerning the father's residence and the presence of certain individuals. The court also had to address communication protocols between the parents and children, and the parents' conduct towards each other and the children.
Watts J made detailed orders concerning the children's living arrangements and time with each parent. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for D, with D to spend time with both parents as he chooses. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for L, with L to live with her and spend time with his father under specific conditions. These conditions included regular weekend and holiday time, with detailed provisions regarding travel, the father's sobriety, and the involvement of a third party, Mr R, to monitor the father's compliance. The orders also stipulated that neither parent would use illegal substances or alcohol in the presence of the children, and prohibited denigration of the other parent.
The court also made orders regarding communication between the children and their father, the father's financial contributions to L's phone calls, and the provision of school reports. Additionally, the father was restrained from allowing L to come into contact with a specific individual. The orders included provisions for written communication between the parties and a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between the parties which ended after 1 March 2009.
The court was required to determine the specific terms of parental responsibility for each child, including who would have sole parental responsibility and the conditions under which each parent would spend time with the children. Further issues included the location and conditions for the children's time with their parents, particularly concerning the father's residence and the presence of certain individuals. The court also had to address communication protocols between the parents and children, and the parents' conduct towards each other and the children.
Watts J made detailed orders concerning the children's living arrangements and time with each parent. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for D, with D to spend time with both parents as he chooses. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for L, with L to live with her and spend time with his father under specific conditions. These conditions included regular weekend and holiday time, with detailed provisions regarding travel, the father's sobriety, and the involvement of a third party, Mr R, to monitor the father's compliance. The orders also stipulated that neither parent would use illegal substances or alcohol in the presence of the children, and prohibited denigration of the other parent.
The court also made orders regarding communication between the children and their father, the father's financial contributions to L's phone calls, and the provision of school reports. Additionally, the father was restrained from allowing L to come into contact with a specific individual. The orders included provisions for written communication between the parties and a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between the parties which ended after 1 March 2009.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
KENNEDY & MASUYO
[2012] FamCA 471
Cases Citing This Decision
0