Lindell & Ranteri
Case
•
[2010] FamCA 52
•27 January 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lindell & Ranteri [2010] FamCA 52
[2010] FamCA 52
27 January 2010
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Lindell & Ranteri [2010] FamCA 52
Most Recent Citation
Ford and Pelly [2010] FMCAfam 228
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Ginty and Sleith
[2017] FCCA 1330
Solberg and Rounds
[2017] FCCA 1066
Ashford and Ashford
[2015] FCCA 2701
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1