Tiegs and Tiegs

Case

[2010] FamCA 912

11 August 2010


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Tiegs and Tiegs [2010] FamCA 912 [2010] FamCA 912 11 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned orders made by Coleman J regarding the parental responsibility and time arrangements for two children, X and Y. The dispute centred on the specific details of how the children would spend time with each parent, including during school terms, holidays, and on significant dates.

The court was required to determine the precise terms of the parenting orders, addressing issues such as the division of time between the parents during school terms and holidays, arrangements for birthdays and other special days, and the procedures for changeovers and communication between the parents. The court also needed to make orders concerning the notification of medical emergencies and changes of contact details.

Coleman J made detailed orders concerning the children's time with each parent, establishing a framework for joint parental responsibility. The orders specified the frequency and duration of time the children would spend with the father during school terms, including specific weekend and mid-week arrangements. Provisions were also made for the division of school holidays, including mid-year and Christmas breaks, and for the children to spend time with each parent on their respective birthdays, Father's Day, and Mother's Day. The court also ordered that changeovers occur in a public place, daily phone calls between children and the non-resident parent, and that each parent be kept informed of school and medical matters concerning the children. Liberty was reserved for the parties to file a minute of order reflecting any consent variation.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Consent

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

3

Statutory Material Cited

3

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4
Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102
AMS v AIF [1999] HCA 26