ROSE & ROSE

Case

[2015] FamCA 200

27 March 2015


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
ROSE & ROSE [2015] FamCA 200 [2015] FamCA 200 27 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rose & Rose, Berman J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made orders concerning the parental responsibility and living arrangements for the child, B. The dispute centred on how the child would spend time with each parent, particularly as the child transitioned through different stages of schooling.

The court was required to determine the specific arrangements for shared parental responsibility, including the primary residence of the child and the detailed schedule of time the child would spend with each parent. This involved establishing a framework for the child's living arrangements from the present until the commencement of the 2017 academic year, and thereafter. The court also had to consider arrangements for significant periods such as school holidays, Easter, Christmas, and the child's birthday, as well as provisions for communication, medical care, and school-related matters.

Berman J ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The court then set out a detailed schedule for the child to live with the mother, with specific times and durations that evolved with the child's schooling. This schedule included provisions for alternate weeks, specific days during intervening weeks, and arrangements for school holidays, Easter, and Christmas, with alternating patterns for these special occasions. The orders also stipulated that the child would live with the father at all other times, and included provisions for communication regarding illness, medical treatment, and school matters, as well as joint enrolment in educational institutions. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all matters were removed from the Pending List.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

0

Sayer v Radcliffe [2012] FamCAFC 209
Taylor & Barker [2007] FamCA 1246
AMS v AIF [1999] HCA 26