Wickham and Arnett
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 80
•19 January 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Wickham and Arnett [2018] FCCA 80
[2018] FCCA 80
19 January 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved parenting orders concerning two children, X and Y, born in 2010. The dispute was between the mother, Ms Arnett, and the father, Mr Wickham. The matter was heard by Judge Terry.
The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for the children, specifically whether the father should have any time or communication with them, and to consider the father's capacity to form a meaningful relationship with the children. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of past family violence on the children and their relationship with their parents.
The court's reasoning focused on the children's welfare, particularly their expressed views and fears regarding the father. The judge considered evidence from a family report writer and counselling notes, which indicated that X, one of the children, felt unsafe when his father became angry and had memories of his father's violent behaviour. X had repeatedly refused unsupervised time with his father, expressing fear that his father would hurt someone again. The court acknowledged the complexity of relationships within violent households and the mother's own history of fear and embarrassment. The judge concluded that the father had not demonstrated the capacity to build a meaningful relationship with the children, especially given their fear and the history of family violence.
The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother, and that the father have no time and no communication with the children. Furthermore, an injunction was granted under section 68B of the Family Law Act, restraining the father from entering or approaching within 100 metres of the mother's or children's residences or the children's school, and prohibiting any contact with the mother or children, except through a lawyer or for approved counselling or mediation. All other outstanding applications were dismissed.
The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for the children, specifically whether the father should have any time or communication with them, and to consider the father's capacity to form a meaningful relationship with the children. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of past family violence on the children and their relationship with their parents.
The court's reasoning focused on the children's welfare, particularly their expressed views and fears regarding the father. The judge considered evidence from a family report writer and counselling notes, which indicated that X, one of the children, felt unsafe when his father became angry and had memories of his father's violent behaviour. X had repeatedly refused unsupervised time with his father, expressing fear that his father would hurt someone again. The court acknowledged the complexity of relationships within violent households and the mother's own history of fear and embarrassment. The judge concluded that the father had not demonstrated the capacity to build a meaningful relationship with the children, especially given their fear and the history of family violence.
The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother, and that the father have no time and no communication with the children. Furthermore, an injunction was granted under section 68B of the Family Law Act, restraining the father from entering or approaching within 100 metres of the mother's or children's residences or the children's school, and prohibiting any contact with the mother or children, except through a lawyer or for approved counselling or mediation. All other outstanding applications were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Wickham and Arnett [2018] FCCA 80
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
2
Weekes and Pitcher (No.2)
[2016] FCCA 2486
Betros & Betros
[2017] FamCAFC 90