MARROW & PERIWINKLE
Case
•
[2018] FamCA 637
•23 August 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
MARROW & PERIWINKLE [2018] FamCA 637
[2018] FamCA 637
23 August 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Marrow & Periwinkle*, Loughnan J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing applications by the mother and father for sole parental responsibility and the living arrangements for their two children, aged 12 and 10. Both parents sought orders for the children to live with them exclusively and have no contact with the other parent for at least 12 months. The father alleged parental alienation by the mother, while the mother sought sole parental responsibility.
The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given the father's admitted family violence. It also had to consider the children's best interests in determining where they should live and the extent of their contact with each parent, particularly in light of the father's history of family violence and lack of insight into his behaviour. The father's alleged parental alienation and the mother's alleged alienation were also issues before the court.
Loughnan J found that the father had engaged in family violence, which meant the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply. The court noted the parents' inability to cooperate and the mother's primary care of the children. Crucially, expert evidence indicated the father had no insight into his past violent behaviour, and it was deemed unsafe for the children to be exposed to his attitudes and conduct. Consequently, the court ordered that the children live with the mother and have no time with the father.
The court further ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children. Communication between the father and the children was to be at the children's request, facilitated by the mother. The mother was permitted to take the children outside Australia without the father's consent, and their names were to be removed from the Family Law Watchlist for this purpose. The father was convicted of assault of his current partner, and the expert stated he had no insight into his previous violent behaviour.
The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given the father's admitted family violence. It also had to consider the children's best interests in determining where they should live and the extent of their contact with each parent, particularly in light of the father's history of family violence and lack of insight into his behaviour. The father's alleged parental alienation and the mother's alleged alienation were also issues before the court.
Loughnan J found that the father had engaged in family violence, which meant the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply. The court noted the parents' inability to cooperate and the mother's primary care of the children. Crucially, expert evidence indicated the father had no insight into his past violent behaviour, and it was deemed unsafe for the children to be exposed to his attitudes and conduct. Consequently, the court ordered that the children live with the mother and have no time with the father.
The court further ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children. Communication between the father and the children was to be at the children's request, facilitated by the mother. The mother was permitted to take the children outside Australia without the father's consent, and their names were to be removed from the Family Law Watchlist for this purpose. The father was convicted of assault of his current partner, and the expert stated he had no insight into his previous violent behaviour.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
MARROW & PERIWINKLE [2018] FamCA 637
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2