Vasten and Ford

Case

[2016] FamCA 1101

21 December 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Vasten and Ford [2016] FamCA 1101 [2016] FamCA 1101 21 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Vasten and Ford, Carew J made orders concerning the contact arrangements for two children, C and D, with their father. The dispute centred on the terms and conditions under which supervised contact should occur, as well as injunctions relating to the children's schooling and counselling, and notification procedures for reporting concerns.

The court was required to determine the specific conditions for supervised contact between the father and the children, including the role and requirements of a family contact service, the duration and frequency of contact, and the allocation of associated costs. Further issues included the preservation of the children's current educational placements, the continuation of counselling, and the process for notifying external agencies of any concerns.

Carew J ordered that both parents must engage with a family contact service to arrange an assessment for supervised time with the children. The parties were directed to attend the assessment, comply with the contact service's appointments and rules, and share equally the reasonable fees for supervision. The father was to have contact for up to three hours weekly, subject to the contact service's availability and rules, with the mother responsible for delivering and collecting the children. The court also issued injunctions restraining the parents from changing the children's school and kindergarten, and stipulated that the mother must facilitate the children's ongoing counselling. Additionally, the mother was ordered to inform the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer before making any notifications to external agencies.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Injunction

  • Costs

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

1

Baghti & Baghti [2015] FamCAFC 71