Depression
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Communication, Emotional Abuse, Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Responsibility, Parenting Orders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child lives with
Judges: Cleary J
Background: The parties began a relationship when Ms Green was 12 and Mr Hann was 16 years old. They married in 1993. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties separated in 2004 when the children were aged about 3 ½ years and 18 months old respectively. The children then lived with their mother and spent regular time with their father, including overnight time. Contact between the children and their father proceeded without incident until 2009. However in 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
[Legal Issue]In 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
The Court has found that this behaviour was encouraged by the mother, who had formed an unhealthy dependence on the children.
As a result, the Court found that there should be a change of residence, from the mother to the father.
[Court Orders]there should be a change of residence;
there should be a period of time when there is limited supervised time with the mother to enable them to settle down in the father’s household and to begin to understand all the changes in their lives;
the children’s behaviour, especially C’s, needs ongoing therapeutic intervention. I find that the mother would not facilitate this but the father and his extended family will;
communication between the parties may improve after the mother takes
Catchwords: Communication, Emotional Abuse, Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Responsibility, Parenting Orders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child lives with
Judges: Cleary J
Background: The parties began a relationship when Ms Green was 12 and Mr Hann was 16 years old. They married in 1993. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties separated in 2004 when the children were aged about 3 ½ years and 18 months old respectively. The children then lived with their mother and spent regular time with their father, including overnight time. Contact between the children and their father proceeded without incident until 2009. However in 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
[Legal Issue]In 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
The Court has found that this behaviour was encouraged by the mother, who had formed an unhealthy dependence on the children.
As a result, the Court found that there should be a change of residence, from the mother to the father.
[Court Orders]there should be a change of residence;
there should be a period of time when there is limited supervised time with the mother to enable them to settle down in the father’s household and to begin to understand all the changes in their lives;
the children’s behaviour, especially C’s, needs ongoing therapeutic intervention. I find that the mother would not facilitate this but the father and his extended family will;
communication between the parties may improve after the mother takes
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Victoria
Catchwords: Assisted Suicide, Elderly, Euthanasia
Judges: Harper J
Background: Mrs Nestorowycz tried to kill herself and her husband who was suffering from dementia and diabetes and living in a nursing home. She was found to have been suffering from a major depressive disorder at the time and said to have had reduced capacity to make appropriate decisions.
[Legal Issue]As indicated by the Judge:
"At the time you committed these acts, you knew what you were doing. As you told the consultant psychiatrist Dr Lester Walton, you believed that you had inflicted a fatal wound on your husband, and intended that he would die. You held the same intention for yourself. But, as Dr Walton also records in his report of 3 June 2008, you believed that your husband was suffering by being kept in a nursing home. He had pleaded with you often over the eight years since his initial admission to take him home. His pleas caused you a great deal of distress because you wanted to have his wish fulfilled, but it could not be. So, feeling very sorry for him, you decided (as you told Dr Walton) to end his life and yours. You continued:
I didn’t do it out of hatred or becau
[Court Orders]Charged with: Attempted Murder. Could have been sentenced up to 25 years prison.
However received 2 years and 9 months wholly suspended sentence
Catchwords: Assisted Suicide, Elderly, Euthanasia
Judges: Harper J
Background: Mrs Nestorowycz tried to kill herself and her husband who was suffering from dementia and diabetes and living in a nursing home. She was found to have been suffering from a major depressive disorder at the time and said to have had reduced capacity to make appropriate decisions.
[Legal Issue]As indicated by the Judge:
"At the time you committed these acts, you knew what you were doing. As you told the consultant psychiatrist Dr Lester Walton, you believed that you had inflicted a fatal wound on your husband, and intended that he would die. You held the same intention for yourself. But, as Dr Walton also records in his report of 3 June 2008, you believed that your husband was suffering by being kept in a nursing home. He had pleaded with you often over the eight years since his initial admission to take him home. His pleas caused you a great deal of distress because you wanted to have his wish fulfilled, but it could not be. So, feeling very sorry for him, you decided (as you told Dr Walton) to end his life and yours. You continued:
I didn’t do it out of hatred or becau
[Court Orders]Charged with: Attempted Murder. Could have been sentenced up to 25 years prison.
However received 2 years and 9 months wholly suspended sentence
Court or Tribunal: High Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Paternity Fraud
Judges: Crennan JGleeson JGummow CJHayne JHeydon JKirby J
Background: Ms Magill had made false representations in the course of the marriage concerning the paternity of children born during the marriage. DNA testing after the marriage ended revealed two children of the marriage were not the biological children of the Mr Magill.
[Legal Issue]At issue in these proceedings was the notion of paternity fraud, and whether the tort of deceit can be applied in a marital context in relation to false representations of paternity.
Once finding out that he was not the father of his two youngest children, and his ex-wife aware that he was likely not the father, he sued, launching a case for deceit in the Victorian County Court, claiming damages for personal injury in the form of anxiety and depression resulting from fraudulent misrepresentations.
He also claimed financial loss, including loss of earning capacity by reason of his psychiatric problems and expenditure on the children under the mistaken belief he was their father, plus exemplary damages.
The County Court awarded him $70,000 from his ex-wife, including $30,000 for gen
[Court Orders]The judges unanimously ruled that the case for paternity fraud brought by Liam Neale Magill failed.
Three judges held that no action for deceit could lie in representations about paternity made between spouses.
Three other judges held that there could be circumstances in which such an action might succeed but they were exceptional and did not cover Mr Magill's situation.
However, the court also rejected an argument put by Mr Magill's former wife Meredith that the Family Law Act ruled ou
Catchwords: Appeal, Paternity Fraud
Judges: Crennan JGleeson JGummow CJHayne JHeydon JKirby J
Background: Ms Magill had made false representations in the course of the marriage concerning the paternity of children born during the marriage. DNA testing after the marriage ended revealed two children of the marriage were not the biological children of the Mr Magill.
[Legal Issue]At issue in these proceedings was the notion of paternity fraud, and whether the tort of deceit can be applied in a marital context in relation to false representations of paternity.
Once finding out that he was not the father of his two youngest children, and his ex-wife aware that he was likely not the father, he sued, launching a case for deceit in the Victorian County Court, claiming damages for personal injury in the form of anxiety and depression resulting from fraudulent misrepresentations.
He also claimed financial loss, including loss of earning capacity by reason of his psychiatric problems and expenditure on the children under the mistaken belief he was their father, plus exemplary damages.
The County Court awarded him $70,000 from his ex-wife, including $30,000 for gen
[Court Orders]The judges unanimously ruled that the case for paternity fraud brought by Liam Neale Magill failed.
Three judges held that no action for deceit could lie in representations about paternity made between spouses.
Three other judges held that there could be circumstances in which such an action might succeed but they were exceptional and did not cover Mr Magill's situation.
However, the court also rejected an argument put by Mr Magill's former wife Meredith that the Family Law Act ruled ou