Sapsford and Barden
Case
•
[2016] FCCA 1675
•29 July 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sapsford and Barden [2016] FCCA 1675
[2016] FCCA 1675
29 July 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Sapsford and Barden, heard before Judge Altobelli, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2008. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her, while the father's involvement was also a key consideration.
The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements, including the allocation of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the nature and extent of the father's time with the child. Further issues included the father's responsibility for supervision costs, the process for arranging contact, the location of contact, and the father's access to information regarding the child's health and education. The court also had to consider orders restraining certain behaviours by the father, such as denigrating the mother or approaching her and the child, and provisions regarding passport applications and the finalisation of interim orders.
Judge Altobelli made orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility and determining the child's primary residence with her. The father was granted limited, supervised time with the child on four occasions annually, with the father bearing the costs of supervision. Specific protocols were established for arranging these visits, including notice periods and confirmation requirements, and all contact was to occur in a public place. The father was granted limited access to the child's medical and educational information, and both parents were restrained from denigrating each other in the child's presence. The father was also significantly restrained from contacting or approaching the mother and child, attending the child's school, or photographing the child, with specific exceptions. The orders were made interim for three months before becoming final, with liberty to relist the matter within that period.
The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements, including the allocation of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the nature and extent of the father's time with the child. Further issues included the father's responsibility for supervision costs, the process for arranging contact, the location of contact, and the father's access to information regarding the child's health and education. The court also had to consider orders restraining certain behaviours by the father, such as denigrating the mother or approaching her and the child, and provisions regarding passport applications and the finalisation of interim orders.
Judge Altobelli made orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility and determining the child's primary residence with her. The father was granted limited, supervised time with the child on four occasions annually, with the father bearing the costs of supervision. Specific protocols were established for arranging these visits, including notice periods and confirmation requirements, and all contact was to occur in a public place. The father was granted limited access to the child's medical and educational information, and both parents were restrained from denigrating each other in the child's presence. The father was also significantly restrained from contacting or approaching the mother and child, attending the child's school, or photographing the child, with specific exceptions. The orders were made interim for three months before becoming final, with liberty to relist the matter within that period.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Sapsford and Barden [2016] FCCA 1675
Most Recent Citation
PEARCE & ANOR v GEORGE
[2013] FCCA 1590
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Sachs and Sachs
[2014] FCCA 2839
Reidy v Cleary Bros (Parramatta) Pty Ltd
[2013] FCCA 2110
Pearce v George
[2013] FCCA 1590
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
2
MRR v GR
[2010] HCA 4
Brown v The The Queen
[2022] NSWCCA 116
Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2008] FCA 810