Pottinger & Bainton
Case
•
[2009] FamCA 124
•25 February 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pottinger & Bainton [2009] FamCA 124
[2009] FamCA 124
25 February 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned parenting orders for a child born in August 2005, with the parties being the mother and the father. The court was asked to determine the arrangements for the child's residence, parental responsibility, and time spent with each parent, considering the father's undertaking to the court dated 29 January 2009, which was varied.
The court was required to determine the extent of parental responsibility to be allocated to each parent, the specific arrangements for the child to live with the mother, and the nature and duration of the father's time with the child, both supervised and unsupervised, before and after the child commenced school. Further issues included communication protocols between the parents, provisions for the child's health and education, and restrictions on the father's conduct towards the child.
The court ordered by consent that previous parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with specific obligations to notify the father in writing of decisions regarding major long-term issues, invite his views, take them into account, and inform him of her decisions. The child was ordered to live with the mother by consent. The father was to spend supervised periods of time with the child, with the conditions for unsupervised time contingent on the father providing a psychiatrist's report addressing his ability to care for the child and confirming he posed no risk of harm. Detailed provisions were made for supervised and unsupervised time, communication between the parties, and the exchange of information regarding the child's health and education. The father was restrained from making derogatory comments about the mother or her relatives in the child's presence. The mother was permitted limited overseas travel with the child under specific conditions. The court also ordered that a Family Consultant provide assistance to a party if reasonably requested.
The court was required to determine the extent of parental responsibility to be allocated to each parent, the specific arrangements for the child to live with the mother, and the nature and duration of the father's time with the child, both supervised and unsupervised, before and after the child commenced school. Further issues included communication protocols between the parents, provisions for the child's health and education, and restrictions on the father's conduct towards the child.
The court ordered by consent that previous parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with specific obligations to notify the father in writing of decisions regarding major long-term issues, invite his views, take them into account, and inform him of her decisions. The child was ordered to live with the mother by consent. The father was to spend supervised periods of time with the child, with the conditions for unsupervised time contingent on the father providing a psychiatrist's report addressing his ability to care for the child and confirming he posed no risk of harm. Detailed provisions were made for supervised and unsupervised time, communication between the parties, and the exchange of information regarding the child's health and education. The father was restrained from making derogatory comments about the mother or her relatives in the child's presence. The mother was permitted limited overseas travel with the child under specific conditions. The court also ordered that a Family Consultant provide assistance to a party if reasonably requested.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Pottinger & Bainton [2009] FamCA 124
Most Recent Citation
BALL & RILEY [2010] FMCAfam 161
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Selkin & Artliff-Selkin
[2013] FamCAFC 19
LUSITO & LUSITO
[2011] FMCAfam 55
BALL & RILEY
[2010] FMCAfam 161
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon
[2003] HCA 48
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon
[2003] HCA 48