Wright and Wright
Case
•
[2010] FamCA 1109
•7 December 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Wright and Wright [2010] FamCA 1109
[2010] FamCA 1109
7 December 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved parenting orders concerning two children, S and O. The dispute centred on the arrangements for the children's living situation, time spent with each parent, and communication between the parents and children. The matter was heard by Justice Austin.
The court was required to determine the specific parenting orders that would best serve the interests of the children, including establishing equal shared parental responsibility, determining with whom the children would live, and detailing the schedule for the children to spend time with the father. Additionally, the court needed to address ongoing communication protocols between the parents and children, restrictions on denigration, and the manner in which the children should refer to their parents. The court also considered provisions for notification of emergencies, educational and extracurricular events, and contact details, as well as the requirement for the parents to complete a post-separation parenting program.
Justice Austin discharged all former parenting orders and made new orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother. The court then set out a detailed, phased schedule for the children to spend time with the father, commencing immediately and extending through to early 2014, with specific provisions for school holidays and public holidays. Further orders addressed communication between the children and the non-resident parent, including daily telephone contact during specific times and on birthdays. The court also imposed restraints on each party denigrating the other in the children's presence and stipulated how the children should refer to their parents. Provisions were made for notification of medical emergencies, educational and extracurricular events, and the exchange of contact details. The parties were ordered to enrol in and complete a post-separation parenting program.
The court was required to determine the specific parenting orders that would best serve the interests of the children, including establishing equal shared parental responsibility, determining with whom the children would live, and detailing the schedule for the children to spend time with the father. Additionally, the court needed to address ongoing communication protocols between the parents and children, restrictions on denigration, and the manner in which the children should refer to their parents. The court also considered provisions for notification of emergencies, educational and extracurricular events, and contact details, as well as the requirement for the parents to complete a post-separation parenting program.
Justice Austin discharged all former parenting orders and made new orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother. The court then set out a detailed, phased schedule for the children to spend time with the father, commencing immediately and extending through to early 2014, with specific provisions for school holidays and public holidays. Further orders addressed communication between the children and the non-resident parent, including daily telephone contact during specific times and on birthdays. The court also imposed restraints on each party denigrating the other in the children's presence and stipulated how the children should refer to their parents. Provisions were made for notification of medical emergencies, educational and extracurricular events, and the exchange of contact details. The parties were ordered to enrol in and complete a post-separation parenting program.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Wright and Wright [2010] FamCA 1109
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
M v M
[1988] HCA 68
J v Lieschke
[1987] HCA 4
J v Lieschke
[1987] HCA 4