Matthews and Norris (No 3)
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 461
•30 June 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Matthews and Norris (No 3) [2017] FamCA 461
[2017] FamCA 461
30 June 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Matthews and Norris (No 3)*, Austin J considered orders concerning a child, B, born in 2010. The dispute involved the parental responsibility and living arrangements for the child, as well as various ancillary orders designed to regulate the parents' future conduct and ensure the child's welfare.
The court was required to determine the appropriate orders regarding sole parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the extent of each parent's involvement in the child's life. Additionally, the court had to consider orders restraining the parents from denigrating each other, managing medical emergencies, facilitating school communication, and preventing the child's removal from Australia. The court also addressed the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the disposition of outstanding applications.
Austin J discharged all former orders relating to the child B and made new orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with the father. The court imposed significant restraints on both parents, including prohibitions against denigrating each other in the child's presence and requirements for notification of medical emergencies. Crucially, the father was given sole discretion regarding the child's time and communication with the mother, with no provision made for such contact in the orders. The court also made orders to prevent the child's removal from Australia and to facilitate communication between the father and the child's school.
The court was required to determine the appropriate orders regarding sole parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the extent of each parent's involvement in the child's life. Additionally, the court had to consider orders restraining the parents from denigrating each other, managing medical emergencies, facilitating school communication, and preventing the child's removal from Australia. The court also addressed the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the disposition of outstanding applications.
Austin J discharged all former orders relating to the child B and made new orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with the father. The court imposed significant restraints on both parents, including prohibitions against denigrating each other in the child's presence and requirements for notification of medical emergencies. Crucially, the father was given sole discretion regarding the child's time and communication with the mother, with no provision made for such contact in the orders. The court also made orders to prevent the child's removal from Australia and to facilitate communication between the father and the child's school.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Matthews & Norris (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 844
Cases Citing This Decision
4
MATTHEWS & NORRIS
[2020] FamCA 547
Matthews and Norris
[2018] FamCA 341
Blakely and Dahlman and Ors
[2018] FCCA 574
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
4
Sullivan and Tyler and Anor (No 2)
[2016] FamCAFC 131
Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps
[1991] NSWCA 186
Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps
[1991] NSWCA 186