FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KHALID & KHALID | [2020] FamCA 109 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Child related proceedings – Best interests of the child – Where each party seeks competing sole parental responsibility and live with orders – Where the mother seeks orders that the child spend only supervised recognition time with the father once every three (3) months – Where the father seeks orders that the child speak with the mother once per week for 30 minutes and graduate to supervised time for two (2) hours per fortnight after the mother undertakes psychological intervention – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks orders be made in accordance with those sought by the mother – Where there is a history of severe disputation and conflict between the parties – Where the father is found to have engaged in deliberately manipulative conduct to encourage the child to make false allegations that she has been physically abused by the mother – Where the father is found to have encouraged the child to record negative feelings about the mother including calling the mother “stepmother” – Where the father is found to have denigrated the mother and interrogated the child with a view of extracting damaging information concerning the mother – Where the Court finds that there is a probability that the father will engage in similar conduct in the future – Where, as at November 2018, there had been 36 child protection reports and six (6) investigations in respect to the child – Where the allegations of abuse by the mother have not been substantiated – Where the Court finds that there is an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm in the unsupervised care of the father – Where the Court makes Orders in accordance with those sought by the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer including that the father spend time with the child on an indefinite supervised basis and for that time to be restricted to recognition time. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s. 43(1)(c), 43(1)(ca), 60B(1), 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAC(2), 65DAC(3), 65DAA, 69ZT(1)(a), 79ZX(3)(b) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s. 140 |
| A v A (1998) FLC 92-800 |
Continue reading KHALID & KHALID
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- KHALID & KHALID [2020] FamCA 109
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the child D, the allocation of parental responsibility, and the nature and extent of contact between the child and the father, Mr Khalid. Further issues included restrictions on the removal of the child from Australia and the communication protocols between the parents.
The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The child D was to live with the mother, Ms Khalid, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father was significantly restricted in his contact with D, with supervised visits of two hours every three months at the father's expense, during which he was only permitted to speak English. The father was also restrained from removing D from the mother except by court order, and from contacting either the mother or D except in emergencies via text message. The mother was to provide monthly email updates on D's welfare, with no response permitted from the father. The father was also prohibited from contacting D's educational or medical providers. Both parents were restrained from removing D from the Commonwealth of Australia for 12 months, and the child's name was to be placed on the Airport Watch list.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That all previous parenting Orders be discharged.
2.
That the child, D born … 2009, live with Ms Khalid (“the mother”).
3.
That the mother have sole parental responsibility for D.
4.
That Mr Khalid (“the father”), his agents or servants be restrained from removing D from the mother except pursuant to an Order made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
5.
That the father spend supervised time with D for two (2) hours once every three (3) months at Suburb B or another agreed supervised contact centre at the father’s sole cost.
6.
That the father only speak English at those times the child spends time with him in accordance with Order 5.
7.
That the father is hereby restrained from contacting the mother and D unless in case of an emergency in relation to D whereby the parties shall communicate via text message only.
8.
That the father is restrained from causing any other person from contacting the mother or D by any means whatsoever.
9.
That the mother shall provide to the father one (1) email per month detailing D’s health, education and welfare and shall enclose any reports or letters from D’s education provider and one photograph and the father is restrained from responding to this correspondence.
10.
For the purposes of Orders 6 and 8, the father shall provide his mobile telephone number and email address to the mother, via text message, only in the event that his number or email address changes.
11.
That if, after a period of 12 months, the mother decides to travel internationally with D, the mother shall inform the father by email of the dates and location of the proposed travel.
12.
That the mother shall inform the father by email in the event that she chooses to relocate outside the Canberra/Queanbeyan Region with D but the mother is not obliged to provide the father with the mother’s residential address.
13.
That the father is hereby restrained and prohibited from contacting and attending D’s educational provider or medical practitioners by any means whatsoever.
14.
That until further order each party, Ms Khalid born … 1979 and Mr Khalid born … 1979, their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the said child D born … 2009 from the Commonwealth of Australia for a period of 12 months from the date of these Orders
AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the name of the said child D born … 2009 on the Airport Watch list in force at all of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child’s name on the watch list until the court orders its removal.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.