St Claire & St Clair and Ors

Case

[2013] FamCA 108

27 February 2013


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
ST CLAIRE & ST CLAIRE AND ORS [2013] FamCA 108 [2013] FamCA 108 27 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *St Claire & St Clair and Ors*, Cronin J determined parenting orders concerning the children D and K. The dispute involved the wife seeking sole parental responsibility for both children and orders for them to live with her. The husband's willingness to engage in therapeutic intervention was a central consideration in the court's determination of future contact arrangements.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, living arrangements, and the nature and extent of contact between the husband and the children. A key legal issue was how to facilitate a healthy parent-child relationship between the husband and K, given the circumstances, and the conditions under which such contact should occur. The court also considered the role of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the potential consequences of non-compliance with its orders.

Cronin J ordered that the wife have sole parental responsibility for D and K, and that the children live with the wife. All prior parenting orders were discharged. The court mandated that the wife, with the assistance of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, arrange for K to attend therapy to foster a healthy parent-child relationship with the husband. The husband was required to indicate his willingness to attend and pay for such therapy. Failure to unequivocally accept this by a specified date would result in the discharge of the therapy order and no further contact between the husband and K without further order. Contact between the husband and D was to be by arrangement between them. If the husband agreed to therapy, it was to commence promptly. The court outlined a phased approach to supervised contact for K, commencing with therapy and potentially progressing to supervised contact at a centre for a minimum of 12 months, followed by unsupervised contact on alternate weekends. The husband was otherwise restrained from contacting K, except for sending cards, letters, and presents through the wife. The therapist's determination regarding the benefit of contact was to be in writing, with the possibility of limiting contact to cards, letters, and presents if deemed not beneficial.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Remedies

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Jurisdiction

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

6

Peat and Northup (No 2) [2020] FamCA 1123
Smith and Duke [2016] FamCA 131
MALAK & MAIRIE [2015] FamCA 563
Cases Cited

6

Statutory Material Cited

1

M v M [1988] HCA 68
Pishke & Rupp; Bannon & Rupp [2010] FamCA 632
Sigley & Evor [2011] FamCAFC 22