Stone and Menzies
Case
•
[2015] FCCA 12
•13 January 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Stone and Menzies [2015] FCCA 12
[2015] FCCA 12
13 January 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter came before Judge Coker concerning parenting orders for a child, X, born in 2007. The dispute centred on the arrangements for the child's care, living arrangements, and parental responsibilities following the separation of the child's parents.
The court was required to determine the extent of equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, including the child's education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. Additionally, the court needed to establish specific provisions for the day-to-day care, welfare, and development of the child, as well as detailed arrangements for the child's living schedule with each parent, including during school holidays and on special days. The court also had to consider communication protocols between parents, the process for resolving future disputes, and the discharge of an Independent Children's Lawyer.
Judge Coker made orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, requiring the parents to consult and make genuine efforts to reach joint decisions. The orders also stipulated that each parent would be responsible for the child's day-to-day care while the child was with them. A detailed schedule for the child's living arrangements with each parent was set out, progressively increasing the Father's time with the child over several stages. Specific provisions were made for school holidays, special days, and regular communication between the child and the parent not having care. The court also ordered that parents keep each other informed of addresses, contact details, and medical information, and authorised schools to provide information to both parents. A dispute resolution process involving family dispute resolution practitioners was mandated, with specific steps for selecting a practitioner if the parents could not agree.
The court ordered the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer.
The court was required to determine the extent of equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, including the child's education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. Additionally, the court needed to establish specific provisions for the day-to-day care, welfare, and development of the child, as well as detailed arrangements for the child's living schedule with each parent, including during school holidays and on special days. The court also had to consider communication protocols between parents, the process for resolving future disputes, and the discharge of an Independent Children's Lawyer.
Judge Coker made orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, requiring the parents to consult and make genuine efforts to reach joint decisions. The orders also stipulated that each parent would be responsible for the child's day-to-day care while the child was with them. A detailed schedule for the child's living arrangements with each parent was set out, progressively increasing the Father's time with the child over several stages. Specific provisions were made for school holidays, special days, and regular communication between the child and the parent not having care. The court also ordered that parents keep each other informed of addresses, contact details, and medical information, and authorised schools to provide information to both parents. A dispute resolution process involving family dispute resolution practitioners was mandated, with specific steps for selecting a practitioner if the parents could not agree.
The court ordered the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Stone and Menzies [2015] FCCA 12
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
Lansa & Clovelly
[2010] FamCA 80
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[1997] HCA 25
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[1997] HCA 25