RATTRAY & SANTINO
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 2904
•4 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Rattray and Santino [2018] FCCA 2904
[2018] FCCA 2904
4 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Rattray & Santino, heard by Judge Altobelli, the dispute concerned interim parenting arrangements for a young, breast-fed child amidst moderate to high parental conflict. The court was required to determine the most appropriate interim orders for the child's residence, time spent with each parent, and communication protocols between the parents, as well as the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer.
The court ordered that the parents share equal parental responsibility for the child. The child was to live with the Respondent Mother, while the Applicant Mother was granted specific periods of time with the child, structured in two stages, with provisions for agreed-upon additional times. The orders also stipulated that the Applicant Mother must provide her address for any time spent with the child, and that time with the Applicant Mother would be suspended if the child was unwell, requiring a medical certificate from the Respondent Mother. Changeovers were to occur at an agreed location or, failing agreement, at the Respondent Mother's residence. Communication between the parents was to be primarily by text message for urgent matters and details of the child's day, and by email for all other day-to-day matters, including arrangements for time spent with the child. Both parents were restrained from speaking negatively about the other parent or their family in the child's presence, or discussing the proceedings or their relationship with the child.
Furthermore, pursuant to section 68L of the *Family Law Act 1975*, an Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed for the child, with a request made to the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales for representation. The parties were directed to provide all filed documents, existing orders, and relevant reports to the Legal Aid Commission. The Independent Children's Lawyer was granted leave to issue subpoenas, inspect and photocopy documents produced on subpoena, and relist the matter on short notice if circumstances required. The matter was then stood over for a mention on 31 July 2019.
The court ordered that the parents share equal parental responsibility for the child. The child was to live with the Respondent Mother, while the Applicant Mother was granted specific periods of time with the child, structured in two stages, with provisions for agreed-upon additional times. The orders also stipulated that the Applicant Mother must provide her address for any time spent with the child, and that time with the Applicant Mother would be suspended if the child was unwell, requiring a medical certificate from the Respondent Mother. Changeovers were to occur at an agreed location or, failing agreement, at the Respondent Mother's residence. Communication between the parents was to be primarily by text message for urgent matters and details of the child's day, and by email for all other day-to-day matters, including arrangements for time spent with the child. Both parents were restrained from speaking negatively about the other parent or their family in the child's presence, or discussing the proceedings or their relationship with the child.
Furthermore, pursuant to section 68L of the *Family Law Act 1975*, an Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed for the child, with a request made to the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales for representation. The parties were directed to provide all filed documents, existing orders, and relevant reports to the Legal Aid Commission. The Independent Children's Lawyer was granted leave to issue subpoenas, inspect and photocopy documents produced on subpoena, and relist the matter on short notice if circumstances required. The matter was then stood over for a mention on 31 July 2019.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Rattray and Santino [2018] FCCA 2904
Cases Citing This Decision
0