MESSANA & MESSANA (No.2)
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 2939
•18 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Messana and Messana (No.2) [2019] FCCA 2939
[2019] FCCA 2939
18 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Messana & Messana (No.2)*, Judge Altobelli considered an application concerning parenting arrangements for a child, X. The proceedings involved a dispute between the mother and father regarding the care, welfare, and development of X, a child born in 2009. The case also addressed the practical implications of representation under section 102NA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in a part-heard matter, including issues surrounding the provision of transcripts and limitations on cross-examination.
The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders in circumstances of intractable parental conflict. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of section 102NA, which allows for legal representation in certain family law proceedings, to a matter that had already commenced. This involved assessing how such representation would practically function, particularly concerning the provision of essential documents like transcripts and the scope of cross-examination permitted for represented parties in a part-heard context.
The court's reasoning led to the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for X concerning long-term decisions about care, welfare, and development. However, the parents were to share equal responsibility for decisions that would significantly impede the child's time with the other parent, with a geographical limitation of 120 kilometres between their residences unless otherwise agreed. The mother was also required to consult with the father in writing at least 42 days in advance of any major long-term decisions, provide him with all relevant information, facilitate access to necessary authorities for further information, consider his response, and inform him of any final decision within seven days. Each parent retained sole responsibility for day-to-day decisions during their respective periods of care.
Consequently, the court ordered that X live with the mother. The father was granted specific time with X on alternate weekends, with provisions for extended time during public holidays.
The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders in circumstances of intractable parental conflict. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of section 102NA, which allows for legal representation in certain family law proceedings, to a matter that had already commenced. This involved assessing how such representation would practically function, particularly concerning the provision of essential documents like transcripts and the scope of cross-examination permitted for represented parties in a part-heard context.
The court's reasoning led to the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for X concerning long-term decisions about care, welfare, and development. However, the parents were to share equal responsibility for decisions that would significantly impede the child's time with the other parent, with a geographical limitation of 120 kilometres between their residences unless otherwise agreed. The mother was also required to consult with the father in writing at least 42 days in advance of any major long-term decisions, provide him with all relevant information, facilitate access to necessary authorities for further information, consider his response, and inform him of any final decision within seven days. Each parent retained sole responsibility for day-to-day decisions during their respective periods of care.
Consequently, the court ordered that X live with the mother. The father was granted specific time with X on alternate weekends, with provisions for extended time during public holidays.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
MESSANA & MESSANA
[2018] FCCA 3284
MRR v GR
[2010] HCA 4
Goode & Goode
[2006] FamCA 1346