King and King

Case

[2016] FCCA 827

19 April 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
King and King [2016] FCCA 827 [2016] FCCA 827 19 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned parenting orders made by Judge Bender in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute involved the living arrangements and parental responsibility for three children, X, Y, and Z.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders for the children, considering the circumstances presented. This included deciding on sole or shared parental responsibility, where the children would live, the nature and extent of the father's contact with the children, and various conditions and injunctions to be imposed on both parents. The court also had to consider the children's ongoing therapeutic needs and the father's compliance with programs aimed at addressing behavioural issues.

Judge Bender's reasoning led to the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The court ordered that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for X, Y, and Z, and that the children live with her. The Father was significantly restricted in his contact, with no face-to-face time permitted, but with supervised telephone contact alternating weekly. The Father was also ordered to complete a Men's Behavioural Change Program and a parenting program, and to engage with the Department of Health and Human Services. Injunctions were placed on both parents, restraining them from denigrating each other to the children, discussing proceedings with them, and exposing them to conflict. The court also made detailed orders regarding the children's counselling and therapeutic interventions.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Injunction

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

  • Standing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

KING & KING (No.2) [2017] FCCA 2776
Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

2

Taylor & Barker [2007] FamCA 1246
AMS v AIF [1999] HCA 26