Shannon and Cairnes
Case
•
[2017] FCCA 2956
•15 December 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Shannon and Cairnes [2017] FCCA 2956
[2017] FCCA 2956
15 December 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Shannon and Cairnes*, heard before Judge Burchardt, the dispute concerned parenting orders relating to children X and Y. The specific nature of the dispute, beyond the need for court intervention regarding the children's welfare and parental conduct, is not detailed in the provided text.
The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the children's upbringing and the conduct of their parents. These included prohibitions on the parents allowing the children to engage with age-inappropriate video games, possessing such games, denigrating each other in the children's presence, and discussing the proceedings with or in front of the children. Further issues involved ensuring the children's punctual school attendance, restraining the father from taking the children hunting or exposing them to firearms, and requiring the mother to complete a Parenting After Separation course. The court also considered the need for the mother to attend upon a psychologist or counsellor and to refrain from engaging in counselling for the children without a court order.
Judge Burchardt made several orders aimed at protecting the children and regulating parental behaviour. These orders included an adjournment of the matter to a specific date, liberty to apply for the parties, and specific prohibitions on parental conduct. The court mandated the mother's attendance at counselling and the completion of a Parenting After Separation course, with proof to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The father was specifically restrained from activities involving hunting and firearms. Both parents were ordered to ensure the children's punctual school attendance and were prohibited from allowing the children to engage with or possess age-inappropriate video games, denigrating each other, or discussing the proceedings with the children. The court also ordered that neither parent engage in counselling for the children unless specifically directed by the court.
The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the children's upbringing and the conduct of their parents. These included prohibitions on the parents allowing the children to engage with age-inappropriate video games, possessing such games, denigrating each other in the children's presence, and discussing the proceedings with or in front of the children. Further issues involved ensuring the children's punctual school attendance, restraining the father from taking the children hunting or exposing them to firearms, and requiring the mother to complete a Parenting After Separation course. The court also considered the need for the mother to attend upon a psychologist or counsellor and to refrain from engaging in counselling for the children without a court order.
Judge Burchardt made several orders aimed at protecting the children and regulating parental behaviour. These orders included an adjournment of the matter to a specific date, liberty to apply for the parties, and specific prohibitions on parental conduct. The court mandated the mother's attendance at counselling and the completion of a Parenting After Separation course, with proof to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The father was specifically restrained from activities involving hunting and firearms. Both parents were ordered to ensure the children's punctual school attendance and were prohibited from allowing the children to engage with or possess age-inappropriate video games, denigrating each other, or discussing the proceedings with the children. The court also ordered that neither parent engage in counselling for the children unless specifically directed by the court.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Shannon and Cairnes [2017] FCCA 2956
Cases Citing This Decision
0