WOODHAM & ERICKSON
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 3785
•13 December 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Woodham and Erickson [2018] FCCA 3785
[2018] FCCA 3785
13 December 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Woodham & Erickson, Judge McGuire of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the parenting arrangements for three children. The dispute involved the mother's desire to relocate the children from Brisbane to Location A, a municipality within Queensland, and the father's opposition to this move. The proceedings also touched upon issues of family violence.
The court was required to determine whether to permit the mother to change the children's primary place of residence to Location A, and if so, what parenting orders would be in the best interests of the children. This included considering the extent of equal shared parental responsibility, the specific time the children would spend with each parent, and the practical arrangements for facilitating that time, including travel costs. The court also had to address the need for orders to protect the children from parental conflict and to prevent their removal from Australia.
Judge McGuire discharged all extant parenting orders and made new orders reflecting equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother. The court permitted the mother to relocate the children to Location A, establishing a detailed schedule for the children's time with the father, including school holidays and term-time weekends, and outlining shared responsibility for travel costs. Crucially, the court made orders restraining both parents from discussing the proceedings with the children or denigrating the other parent in their presence. Furthermore, orders were made to prevent the removal of the children from Australia and to place their names on the Airport Watch List for three years, with law enforcement empowered to give effect to these orders.
The court was required to determine whether to permit the mother to change the children's primary place of residence to Location A, and if so, what parenting orders would be in the best interests of the children. This included considering the extent of equal shared parental responsibility, the specific time the children would spend with each parent, and the practical arrangements for facilitating that time, including travel costs. The court also had to address the need for orders to protect the children from parental conflict and to prevent their removal from Australia.
Judge McGuire discharged all extant parenting orders and made new orders reflecting equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother. The court permitted the mother to relocate the children to Location A, establishing a detailed schedule for the children's time with the father, including school holidays and term-time weekends, and outlining shared responsibility for travel costs. Crucially, the court made orders restraining both parents from discussing the proceedings with the children or denigrating the other parent in their presence. Furthermore, orders were made to prevent the removal of the children from Australia and to place their names on the Airport Watch List for three years, with law enforcement empowered to give effect to these orders.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Woodham and Erickson [2018] FCCA 3785
Most Recent Citation
Lovatt and Dowling [2019] FCCA 714
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
Bale & Bale
[2016] FCCA 680
Sayer v Radcliffe
[2012] FamCAFC 209
Champness & Hanson
[2009] FamCAFC 96