Reiner & Reiner

Case

[2009] FamCA 926

25 September, 2009


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Reiner & Reiner [2009] FamCA 926 [2009] FamCA 926 25 September, 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned orders made by Justice Cronin regarding the parental responsibility and time arrangements for a child, J, born in December 2002. The dispute involved the husband and wife, who were seeking to finalise arrangements for their child following their separation.

The court was required to determine the specific terms of parental responsibility for major educational and medical decisions concerning the child. It also needed to establish the child's living arrangements and the detailed schedule for the child spending time with each parent. Further issues included provisions for communication between parents and the child, attendance at school functions, and arrangements for medical consultations. The court also addressed financial matters, including property settlement and the removal of the child from Australia.

Justice Cronin made orders that the husband would have sole responsibility for major educational decisions during the child's primary school years, with joint decision-making thereafter. The wife was granted sole responsibility for major medical decisions, with a requirement to consult the husband by email for non-urgent treatments. The husband was permitted to attend medical consultations at his own expense. The court ordered that the child live with the wife and established a detailed schedule for the child spending time with the husband, including provisions for holidays and birthdays. The court also made orders regarding communication, attendance at school events, and a requirement for both parents to attend a Parents’ Orders Program.

The court further ordered that neither parent be permitted to remove the child from Australia until 30 November 2011, with the Australian Federal Police to place the child's name on the Airport Watch List. In terms of financial settlement, the husband was ordered to pay the wife $21,000 and transfer his interest in a property at M, Victoria, with the wife to refinance the mortgage. All other extant applications were dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Property Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies

  • Costs

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

3

Baulkham and Lester [2017] FCCA 2311
BABINGTON & BABINGTON [2015] FCCA 339
Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

3

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34