Lardon and Cool
Case
•
[2009] FamCA 73
•23 January 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lardon and Cool [2009] FamCA 73
[2009] FamCA 73
23 January 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned interim parenting orders made by Barry J in the Family Court of Australia. The proceedings involved the parents, Lardon and Cool, and their child, born in October 1994. The dispute centred on the living arrangements and time spent between the child and each parent, particularly in light of the child's ongoing medical treatment.
The court was required to determine the interim parenting arrangements for the child, considering the child's rehabilitation and medical treatment at the Royal Children’s Hospital. Key issues included establishing where the child would live during this rehabilitation period, the father's time with the child, and the arrangements for the child's care following the fitting of a prosthetic. The court also needed to address communication between the parents and the child, the supervision of compliance with the orders, and the liberty of the Family Consultant and Independent Children’s Lawyer to obtain medical reports and seek further hearings if necessary.
Barry J made orders by consent, establishing a framework for the child's care during a period of rehabilitation. The child was to live with the mother during this phase, with the father having defined weekend time with the child in the Brisbane area. Specific provisions were made for the child to spend time with the father in the T area following the fitting of an interim prosthetic, with subsequent return to the mother's care until the child was comfortable with the prosthetic. The orders also stipulated joint parental responsibility, communication rights for both parents, and the supervision of compliance by the Family Consultant. The court further directed that the Family Consultant explain the orders to the child and granted liberty to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to seek further interim or final hearing dates. The matter was adjourned for review before Justice O’Reilly.
The court was required to determine the interim parenting arrangements for the child, considering the child's rehabilitation and medical treatment at the Royal Children’s Hospital. Key issues included establishing where the child would live during this rehabilitation period, the father's time with the child, and the arrangements for the child's care following the fitting of a prosthetic. The court also needed to address communication between the parents and the child, the supervision of compliance with the orders, and the liberty of the Family Consultant and Independent Children’s Lawyer to obtain medical reports and seek further hearings if necessary.
Barry J made orders by consent, establishing a framework for the child's care during a period of rehabilitation. The child was to live with the mother during this phase, with the father having defined weekend time with the child in the Brisbane area. Specific provisions were made for the child to spend time with the father in the T area following the fitting of an interim prosthetic, with subsequent return to the mother's care until the child was comfortable with the prosthetic. The orders also stipulated joint parental responsibility, communication rights for both parents, and the supervision of compliance by the Family Consultant. The court further directed that the Family Consultant explain the orders to the child and granted liberty to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to seek further interim or final hearing dates. The matter was adjourned for review before Justice O’Reilly.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Consent
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Lardon and Cool [2009] FamCA 73
Most Recent Citation
Babington and Babington [2015] FCCA 339
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Cunningham and Cunningham (No.2)
[2015] FCCA 1332
BABINGTON & BABINGTON
[2015] FCCA 339
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0