Labeck and Calandros

Case

[2020] FCCA 1378

12 May 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Labeck and Calandros [2020] FCCA 1378 [2020] FCCA 1378 12 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application to vary existing orders concerning the time spent by the Father with the parties' two young children, X (born 2016) and Y (born 2017). The dispute also involved the Mother's compliance with drug testing requirements and the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer.

The court was required to determine the appropriate schedule for the children's time with the Father, considering a phased increase in contact. Additionally, the court needed to address the location of changeovers, the procedure and consequences of hair follicle testing for the Mother, and the necessity of independent legal representation for the children. The court also had to consider the preparation of a family report to assist in determining the children's best interests.

Judge Young varied the existing orders to implement a staged increase in the children's time with the Father, commencing from May 2020. The court also ordered that changeovers occur at a designated family services centre, with an exception for Wednesdays at the children's school. Crucially, the Mother was ordered to undergo hair follicle testing upon request by the Father's solicitors, with specific provisions regarding sample collection, testing location, costs, and the injunction preventing her from altering her hair before testing. The court further ordered the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer for the children and directed the parties to attend upon a family consultant for the preparation of a family report, outlining the matters to be addressed within that report.

The matter was adjourned to a trial call-over list on 20 November 2020 for further directions.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Injunction

  • Costs

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

  • Jurisdiction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

3