Miller and Schopenhaur
Case
•
[2016] FamCA 407
•26 May 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Miller and Schopenhaur [2016] FamCA 407
[2016] FamCA 407
26 May 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Miller and Schopenhaur*, heard by Tree J, the court was required to determine orders concerning parental responsibility and the time each parent would spend with their three children, B, C, and D. The dispute involved the arrangements for the children's living situations, contact with each parent, communication protocols, and specific issues relating to their welfare and education.
The legal issues before the court included the allocation of sole parental responsibility, the establishment of a parenting schedule that addressed the differing ages of the children, and the implementation of supervised contact arrangements for one of the children. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between the parents and with the children, as well as address specific matters such as medical information, educational reports, and behavioural expectations regarding alcohol consumption and derogatory remarks. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the discharge and continuation of previous court orders.
Tree J ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children. The father was granted time with the boys every second week from Thursday to Monday, with specific provisions for public holidays. The child D was to spend time with the father every Sunday, with this contact to be supervised by designated family members or an agreed-upon alternative, following a specific training session for supervisors. The father was also restricted in the number of his family members who could be present during his time with D. The orders also detailed communication arrangements between the parents and with the children, including telephone calls and email, and stipulated that neither parent should consume alcohol to a level exceeding .05 BAC when caring for the children. Both parents were also directed to complete specific parenting programs and to refrain from making derogatory remarks about each other or their families.
The legal issues before the court included the allocation of sole parental responsibility, the establishment of a parenting schedule that addressed the differing ages of the children, and the implementation of supervised contact arrangements for one of the children. The court also had to consider provisions for communication between the parents and with the children, as well as address specific matters such as medical information, educational reports, and behavioural expectations regarding alcohol consumption and derogatory remarks. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the discharge and continuation of previous court orders.
Tree J ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children. The father was granted time with the boys every second week from Thursday to Monday, with specific provisions for public holidays. The child D was to spend time with the father every Sunday, with this contact to be supervised by designated family members or an agreed-upon alternative, following a specific training session for supervisors. The father was also restricted in the number of his family members who could be present during his time with D. The orders also detailed communication arrangements between the parents and with the children, including telephone calls and email, and stipulated that neither parent should consume alcohol to a level exceeding .05 BAC when caring for the children. Both parents were also directed to complete specific parenting programs and to refrain from making derogatory remarks about each other or their families.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Miller and Schopenhaur [2016] FamCA 407
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
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