TOWER & CALDERON
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 1694
•20 June 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tower and Calderon [2019] FCCA 1694
[2019] FCCA 1694
20 June 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Tower & Calderon*, heard by Judge C. Kelly, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children, X and Y. The mother had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and there was a limited relationship between the children and the father, leading to a need for supervised time.
The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the children and the nature and extent of the father's time with them, considering the mother's mental health diagnosis and the existing limited relationship. The court also had to consider the father's conduct and the need for protective measures for the mother.
The court discharged all previous parenting orders. It ordered that the children live with the mother, who would have sole parental responsibility. The father was to spend time with the children under supervision, either through the Suburb C Children’s Contact Service or an agreed supervisor, with specific conditions regarding frequency, duration, location, and compliance with service provider directions. The father was also permitted to take photographs of the children during supervised visits and was to receive copies of their school reports. Crucially, the father was restrained from attending within 50 metres of the children's schools or extracurricular activities and from posting certain material on social media. All other proceedings were dismissed.
The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the children and the nature and extent of the father's time with them, considering the mother's mental health diagnosis and the existing limited relationship. The court also had to consider the father's conduct and the need for protective measures for the mother.
The court discharged all previous parenting orders. It ordered that the children live with the mother, who would have sole parental responsibility. The father was to spend time with the children under supervision, either through the Suburb C Children’s Contact Service or an agreed supervisor, with specific conditions regarding frequency, duration, location, and compliance with service provider directions. The father was also permitted to take photographs of the children during supervised visits and was to receive copies of their school reports. Crucially, the father was restrained from attending within 50 metres of the children's schools or extracurricular activities and from posting certain material on social media. All other proceedings were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Equity & Trusts
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Tower and Calderon [2019] FCCA 1694
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2