Ryan and Russell

Case

[2013] FamCA 787

4 October 2013


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Ryan and Russell [2013] FamCA 787 [2013] FamCA 787 4 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Ryan and Russell*, Dawe J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application concerning the parenting arrangements for a child born in 2009. The dispute involved the mother and father, who sought final orders regarding their parental responsibilities and the child's living arrangements.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim orders for parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the time the child would spend with each parent. Additionally, the court needed to consider the child's independent representation and the continuation of existing interim orders.

Dawe J made interim orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with the child to live with the father. The mother was to spend time with the child in Australia as agreed in writing, with liberty to apply to the court if no agreement was reached. The father was also ordered to make the child available for two Skype communications per week with the mother, at times to be agreed or at specified times if agreement failed. Pursuant to section 68L of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the child was to be independently represented, with arrangements to be made by the Legal Service Commission of South Australia, and both parties were to provide documents to expedite this appointment. Consideration of the final orders was adjourned to a date to be fixed as a matter of priority, and certain paragraphs of previous orders made by Judge Cole were continued in operation.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
Killam & Loeng [2015] FamCAFC 41

Cases Citing This Decision

1

Killam & Loeng [2015] FamCAFC 41
Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

3

Sayer v Radcliffe [2012] FamCAFC 209
Sayer v Radcliffe [2012] FamCAFC 209
ZP v PS [1994] HCA 29