MAYNARD & ORR
Case
•
[2015] FamCA 998
•12 November 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
MAYNARD & ORR [2015] FamCA 998
[2015] FamCA 998
12 November 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Maynard & Orr*, heard by Tree J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2010. The orders made by the court addressed the living arrangements, parental responsibility, and the extent of contact between the child and each parent.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to where the child should live, who should have parental responsibility, and whether the father should have any contact with the child. Furthermore, the court considered the necessity of imposing restraining orders to protect the child and the mother.
Tree J ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The child is to live with the mother, who will have sole parental responsibility. Crucially, the father is restrained from spending time and communicating with the child, and is also prohibited from approaching within 200 metres of any school, place of residence or employment, or any other place occupied by the child and/or the mother. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged with the thanks of the court upon the later of the expiration of the appeal period or the determination of any appeal. All other extant applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the list of active pending cases.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to where the child should live, who should have parental responsibility, and whether the father should have any contact with the child. Furthermore, the court considered the necessity of imposing restraining orders to protect the child and the mother.
Tree J ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The child is to live with the mother, who will have sole parental responsibility. Crucially, the father is restrained from spending time and communicating with the child, and is also prohibited from approaching within 200 metres of any school, place of residence or employment, or any other place occupied by the child and/or the mother. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged with the thanks of the court upon the later of the expiration of the appeal period or the determination of any appeal. All other extant applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the list of active pending cases.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Appeal
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
MAYNARD & ORR [2015] FamCA 998
Most Recent Citation
Kennett and Nickson and Ors [2017] FCCA 990
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Banks & Banks
[2015] FamCAFC 36
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30
S v Australian Crime Commission
[2005] FCA 1310