Pritchard and Johnston
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 1056
•19 December 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pritchard and Johnston [2017] FamCA 1056
[2017] FamCA 1056
19 December 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned parenting orders made by Tree J in relation to a child born in 2006. The dispute involved the father and mother, with the court discharging previous parenting orders, save for one made by Judge Coker on 23 July 2014.
The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the child's welfare and development. These included who should have parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, where the child should live, and the arrangements for the child to spend time with each parent. The court also had to consider conditions relating to the mother's mental health treatment, provisions for overseas travel with the child, and various restraints and injunctions to be imposed on the parties.
Tree J's reasoning led to orders that the father would have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, with specific notification and consideration requirements for the mother. The child was ordered to live with the father, and detailed provisions were made for the child to spend time with the mother, subject to supervision by a nominated adult. The mother's time with the child was made conditional upon her engaging in mental health treatment, with specific reporting requirements to the father. The father was permitted to travel overseas with the child under certain conditions, and the mother was restrained from various actions, including approaching the father's residence or the child's school, consuming alcohol when the child is in her care, and publishing derogatory statements on social media. The court also made orders regarding counselling for the child and mutual restraints on denigrating each other in the child's presence.
The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the child's welfare and development. These included who should have parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, where the child should live, and the arrangements for the child to spend time with each parent. The court also had to consider conditions relating to the mother's mental health treatment, provisions for overseas travel with the child, and various restraints and injunctions to be imposed on the parties.
Tree J's reasoning led to orders that the father would have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, with specific notification and consideration requirements for the mother. The child was ordered to live with the father, and detailed provisions were made for the child to spend time with the mother, subject to supervision by a nominated adult. The mother's time with the child was made conditional upon her engaging in mental health treatment, with specific reporting requirements to the father. The father was permitted to travel overseas with the child under certain conditions, and the mother was restrained from various actions, including approaching the father's residence or the child's school, consuming alcohol when the child is in her care, and publishing derogatory statements on social media. The court also made orders regarding counselling for the child and mutual restraints on denigrating each other in the child's presence.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Pritchard and Johnston [2017] FamCA 1056
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Johnston & Pritchard
[2011] FMCAfam 1082
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd
[1978] HCA 30
S v Australian Crime Commission
[2005] FCA 1310