MCWATT & EASTHOPE
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 109
•27 February 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
MCWATT & EASTHOPE [2017] FamCA 109
[2017] FamCA 109
27 February 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application before Forrest J in the Family Court of Australia, involving the parents of three children, B, C, and D. The dispute revolved around the living arrangements and parental responsibilities for the children following separation. The Independent Children's Lawyer was also a party to the consent orders.
The court was required to determine the primary residence of each child, the allocation of parental responsibility for major long-term issues, and the arrangements for each parent to spend time and communicate with the children. Additionally, the court needed to make orders concerning the children's schooling, health, and the provision of contact details between the parents. The court also considered the need for injunctions to protect the children from certain behaviours.
By consent of the parties, the court ordered that B would live with the father, while C and D would live with the mother. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues concerning B, and the mother was granted sole parental responsibility for C and D. Each parent was to have responsibility for the daily welfare of the children in their care, with a requirement to consult the other parent on significant decisions. Specific orders were made regarding time and communication between the children and the non-resident parent, including provisions for travel, telephone, and electronic communication. The court also made orders for information sharing regarding schooling and health, and stipulated that each parent must inform the other of changes to contact details.
Finally, the court issued injunctions restraining each parent from physically disciplining the children, denigrating the other parent in the children's presence, or involving the children in discussions about the proceedings. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and a fact sheet detailing the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders was attached to and incorporated into the orders.
The court was required to determine the primary residence of each child, the allocation of parental responsibility for major long-term issues, and the arrangements for each parent to spend time and communicate with the children. Additionally, the court needed to make orders concerning the children's schooling, health, and the provision of contact details between the parents. The court also considered the need for injunctions to protect the children from certain behaviours.
By consent of the parties, the court ordered that B would live with the father, while C and D would live with the mother. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues concerning B, and the mother was granted sole parental responsibility for C and D. Each parent was to have responsibility for the daily welfare of the children in their care, with a requirement to consult the other parent on significant decisions. Specific orders were made regarding time and communication between the children and the non-resident parent, including provisions for travel, telephone, and electronic communication. The court also made orders for information sharing regarding schooling and health, and stipulated that each parent must inform the other of changes to contact details.
Finally, the court issued injunctions restraining each parent from physically disciplining the children, denigrating the other parent in the children's presence, or involving the children in discussions about the proceedings. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and a fact sheet detailing the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders was attached to and incorporated into the orders.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Consent
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
MCWATT & EASTHOPE [2017] FamCA 109
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1