Lindell & Ranteri

Case [2010] FamCA 52

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LINDELL & RANTERI [2010] FamCA 52
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
APPLICANT: Ms Lindell
RESPONDENT: Mr Ranteri
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:
FILE NUMBER: MLC 2638 of 2008
DATE DELIVERED: 27 January 2010
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN
HEARING DATE: 27 JANUARY 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MS WEINER
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: BAYSIDE SOLICITORS
THE RESPONDENT: IN PERSON
COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: MR GRIGG
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: PERRY WESTON

Orders

  1. That the mother have sole responsibility for the major long-term issues concerning the children N born … July 1996, B born … July 1996 and E born … September 1998 subject to the following paragraph.

  2. That prior to making any major long-term decision concerning the children, the wife advise the husband in writing in a communication book of her proposal.

  3. That the husband have seven (7) days after receiving the communication book to respond to the wife’s proposal.

  4. That if the wife does not thereafter agree with the husband’s proposal, she shall notify the husband of her decision and give written reasons why she has rejected the husband’s proposal and she may thereafter implement her decision.

  5. For the purposes of the handover of the children under orders of the Court made 27 January 2010, the wife shall deliver the children to the husband at McDonalds at A at the commencement of all periods and the husband shall return the children to the wife at the conclusion of such periods at the same location.

  6. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Lindell & Ranteri is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2638  of 2008

MS LINDELL

Applicant

And

MR RANTERI

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The parties resolved most of their parenting dispute about N and B both born in July 1996 and their brother E born in September 1998.   Orders for the husband to recommence face to face time with those children were made by consent of the parties and with the endorsement of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

  2. The two issues argued and to which these reasons relate were:

    (a)      The question of equal shared parental responsibility; and

    (b)Who was to do the travelling and for what portions for the contact between the husband and the children.

  3. A further issue concerning property remains unresolved as well.  The position adopted by both parties was far from satisfactory but in the end, each asked me to leave that…

Continue reading Lindell & Ranteri

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lindell & Ranteri [2010] FamCA 52
Case
[2010] FamCA 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Honourable Justice Cronin considered the parenting arrangements for the children N, B, and E in a dispute between the mother and the father. The proceedings concerned the allocation of decision-making authority for major long-term issues relating to the children.

The court was required to determine how parental responsibility for the children's major long-term issues should be allocated. This involved considering the practicalities of decision-making and the communication protocols between the parents. The court also had to address the specific arrangements for the handover of the children between the parents.

Justice Cronin ordered that the mother have sole responsibility for major long-term issues concerning the children. However, this was subject to a specific process requiring the mother to advise the father in writing of her proposals and provide him with seven days to respond. If the mother disagreed with the father's response, she was to notify him of her decision in writing, providing reasons for rejecting his proposal, before implementing her decision. The court also stipulated the location for the handover of the children, specifying McDonalds at A, and included a Fact Sheet detailing the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the mother have sole responsibility for the major long-term issues concerning the children N born … July 1996, B born … July 1996 and E born … September 1998 subject to the following paragraph.

2.

That prior to making any major long-term decision concerning the children, the wife advise the husband in writing in a communication book of her proposal.

3.

That the husband have seven (7) days after receiving the communication book to respond to the wife’s proposal.

4.

That if the wife does not thereafter agree with the husband’s proposal, she shall notify the husband of her decision and give written reasons why she has rejected the husband’s proposal and she may thereafter implement her decision.

5.

For the purposes of the handover of the children under orders of the Court made 27 January 2010, the wife shall deliver the children to the husband at McDonalds at A at the commencement of all periods and the husband shall return the children to the wife at the conclusion of such periods at the same location.

6.

That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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.