Steele and Galloway (No 2)
Case
•
[2011] FamCA 878
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Steele and Galloway (No 2) [2011] FamCA 878
[2011] FamCA 878
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Fowler considered proceedings between Ms Steele (the applicant) and Mr Galloway (the respondent) concerning their child, J. The matter before the court involved applications for orders relating to the child's time with each parent.
The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate interim orders for the child's time with the mother pending an appeal. The court was also required to consider the practical arrangements for contact, including the completion of intake requirements for a contact service and the responsibilities for delivering and collecting the child.
Justice Fowler made orders in terms of paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of a document dated 13 September 2011. These orders stipulated that pending appeal, the child J would spend time with the mother at the Central West Contact Service on Saturdays and Thursdays, and that both parties were to complete the necessary intake requirements for the service. The father was also ordered to deliver and collect J for each contact event. The court declined to make a separate order regarding the cost of supervision at that stage, noting it had been the subject of a previous judgment. The judge encouraged the parties to discuss further to find a mutually convenient and cost-effective solution.
The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate interim orders for the child's time with the mother pending an appeal. The court was also required to consider the practical arrangements for contact, including the completion of intake requirements for a contact service and the responsibilities for delivering and collecting the child.
Justice Fowler made orders in terms of paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of a document dated 13 September 2011. These orders stipulated that pending appeal, the child J would spend time with the mother at the Central West Contact Service on Saturdays and Thursdays, and that both parties were to complete the necessary intake requirements for the service. The father was also ordered to deliver and collect J for each contact event. The court declined to make a separate order regarding the cost of supervision at that stage, noting it had been the subject of a previous judgment. The judge encouraged the parties to discuss further to find a mutually convenient and cost-effective solution.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0