Mendall and Calpin & Anor

Case

[2020] FamCA 332

6 May 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Mendall and Calpin & Anor [2020] FamCA 332 [2020] FamCA 332 6 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mendall and Calpin & Anor, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning the time the children would spend with their mother. The dispute concerned the conditions under which the mother would have contact with the children, with a particular focus on drug screening.

The court was required to determine the terms of the children's time with the mother, including the conditions precedent to such contact, the nature of supervision, and communication arrangements. A key issue was the mechanism for ensuring the mother's sobriety and the consequences of failing to meet the required standards.

Rees J ordered that the mother must undergo drug screening to the Australian NZ 4308:2008 standard within 48 hours of a request by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL). If the ICL was satisfied that the mother had provided a negative test result in the fortnight prior to scheduled time, the children would spend time with her on alternate weekends, commencing from a specified date. Changeovers were to occur at a designated location. The orders stipulated that if the mother failed to provide a negative test result, the father would be notified not to deliver the children, and the mother would be informed that contact would not proceed. Any time spent with the mother was to be supervised by specified family members. Additionally, the father was ordered to ensure the children telephoned the mother on specified evenings. The orders incorporated a fact sheet detailing obligations, consequences of contravention, and assistance resources, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0