Family Court of Australia
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Marriage, Mental Incapacity, Nullity
Judges: Foster J
Background: This was an unlikely marriage, according to the Judge. The groom was 78, about to move into a nursing home and suffering from dementia. The bride was his 49-year-old former cleaner. Weeks earlier, she had accompanied her fiance to his solicitor to change his will to leave her everything. The details of this improbable union were recounted by Justice Garry Foster, who has been asked to declare the marriage void because of the mental incapacity of the husband.
[Legal Issue]Taking into account the likely ''financial motivations'' of the woman, the financial disparity between the pair and his cognitive incapacity and dementia, Justice Foster concluded the man did not have the capacity to understand the nature and effect of his marriage to the woman. Adding to the tiny number of decisions in Australia, Justice Foster declared the Olivers' marriage void in accordance with section 23B(1)(d)(iii) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).
[Court Orders]That the marriage of Mr Oliver and Ms Oliver solemnised on ... April 2011 be declared as void in accordance with section 23B(1)(d)(iii) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).
Catchwords: Marriage, Mental Incapacity, Nullity
Judges: Foster J
Background: This was an unlikely marriage, according to the Judge. The groom was 78, about to move into a nursing home and suffering from dementia. The bride was his 49-year-old former cleaner. Weeks earlier, she had accompanied her fiance to his solicitor to change his will to leave her everything. The details of this improbable union were recounted by Justice Garry Foster, who has been asked to declare the marriage void because of the mental incapacity of the husband.
[Legal Issue]Taking into account the likely ''financial motivations'' of the woman, the financial disparity between the pair and his cognitive incapacity and dementia, Justice Foster concluded the man did not have the capacity to understand the nature and effect of his marriage to the woman. Adding to the tiny number of decisions in Australia, Justice Foster declared the Olivers' marriage void in accordance with section 23B(1)(d)(iii) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).
[Court Orders]That the marriage of Mr Oliver and Ms Oliver solemnised on ... April 2011 be declared as void in accordance with section 23B(1)(d)(iii) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Biological Father, In Vitro Fertilisation, Mitochondrial Transfer, Sperm Donation
Judges: Cronin J
Background: The parties in this dispute lived together as a couple for six months before breaking up in 2002. After separation, they remained friends and the man agreed to donate sperm so that the woman could undergo IVF treatment. The man had also signed a document acknowledging that he had no legal claim to any child born of his sperm donation. However, the man did attend the birth of the child and visited the child regularly, effectively bonding with the child as father and son. This was the case until the relationship between the man and his former partner deteriorated in late 2011, after he revealed that he had a new girlfriend. The woman had since prevented the man from seeing the child. As a result of this, the man launched legal proceedings seeking to re-establish contact with his son, a
[Legal Issue]The woman argued that according to the Status of Children Act 1974 (Vic), there is an irrebuttable presumption that the party donating the sperm that results in an IVF pregnancy is not legally considered the father of the child.
The judge however found that this legislation was irrelevant, as it relied on the sperm donor being effectively "unknown" or "anonymous", where in this case the man had developed a meaningful parental bond with the child.
Even if the legislation was relevant, the man would still comply with the definition of “parent” under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the judge argued, and concluded that despite any potential conflict between the State and Commonwealth legislation, that the Commonwealth law would still prevail, as per Section 109 of the Constitution.
[Court Orders]IT IS ORDERED
(1) That the applicant and the respondent have equal shared parental responsibility concerning the major long-term decisions for the child.
(2) That the child live with the mother with routine stays with his father, encompassing every second weekend and a few hours every Wednesday, once the child reaches school age.
Catchwords: Biological Father, In Vitro Fertilisation, Mitochondrial Transfer, Sperm Donation
Judges: Cronin J
Background: The parties in this dispute lived together as a couple for six months before breaking up in 2002. After separation, they remained friends and the man agreed to donate sperm so that the woman could undergo IVF treatment. The man had also signed a document acknowledging that he had no legal claim to any child born of his sperm donation. However, the man did attend the birth of the child and visited the child regularly, effectively bonding with the child as father and son. This was the case until the relationship between the man and his former partner deteriorated in late 2011, after he revealed that he had a new girlfriend. The woman had since prevented the man from seeing the child. As a result of this, the man launched legal proceedings seeking to re-establish contact with his son, a
[Legal Issue]The woman argued that according to the Status of Children Act 1974 (Vic), there is an irrebuttable presumption that the party donating the sperm that results in an IVF pregnancy is not legally considered the father of the child.
The judge however found that this legislation was irrelevant, as it relied on the sperm donor being effectively "unknown" or "anonymous", where in this case the man had developed a meaningful parental bond with the child.
Even if the legislation was relevant, the man would still comply with the definition of “parent” under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the judge argued, and concluded that despite any potential conflict between the State and Commonwealth legislation, that the Commonwealth law would still prevail, as per Section 109 of the Constitution.
[Court Orders]IT IS ORDERED
(1) That the applicant and the respondent have equal shared parental responsibility concerning the major long-term decisions for the child.
(2) That the child live with the mother with routine stays with his father, encompassing every second weekend and a few hours every Wednesday, once the child reaches school age.
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Tree J
Background: Mr & Ms Wylie met and married in 2000, bought and renovated and sold houses in the property boom, travelled and worked through Europe. Their twin girls were born through IVF in 2007, when Mr Wylie was establishing his own small business. They experienced increasing conflicts within their relationship, until Mr Wylie eventually suggested that they should separate. One day soon after, Mr Wylie received a text message from Ms Wylie: “You need to talk to the Department of Child Safety, they’ve got some concerns.” However an assessment determined that there was no evidence of sexual abuse, but there was evidence of emotional abuse, stemming from fabricated allegations by the mother. Ms Wylie also advised that she too was sexually abused as a child.
[Legal Issue]Previous consent orders. Urgent application following almost immediate failure to comply with orders.
Allegations of sexual abuse and violence against the father.
Allegations of manipulative and alienating behaviours against the mother.
Consideration of argument as to admissibility of statements attributable to the mother being made to Department of Communities officers and communicated to police officers – finding of admissibility – consideration of the objects of the Act and principles and application of relevant considerations – consideration of whether the behaviour of one or other of the parties constitutes an “unacceptable risk” to the children – determination on an interim basis that a risk of psychological harm of an unacceptable nature does arise – orders a
[Court Orders]Family Court judge Justice Peter Tree, “after eight days of trial before me of fiercely contested competing parenting applications relating to the parties’ six-year-old twin girls”, ordered that Mr Wylie have sole parental responsibility for the major long-term care of his children and that Ms Wylie ask her GP for referral to a psychiatrist. “I am satisfied, on the material before me, that the concerns which inevitably would otherwise have flowed from the mother’s notice of abuse, have
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Tree J
Background: Mr & Ms Wylie met and married in 2000, bought and renovated and sold houses in the property boom, travelled and worked through Europe. Their twin girls were born through IVF in 2007, when Mr Wylie was establishing his own small business. They experienced increasing conflicts within their relationship, until Mr Wylie eventually suggested that they should separate. One day soon after, Mr Wylie received a text message from Ms Wylie: “You need to talk to the Department of Child Safety, they’ve got some concerns.” However an assessment determined that there was no evidence of sexual abuse, but there was evidence of emotional abuse, stemming from fabricated allegations by the mother. Ms Wylie also advised that she too was sexually abused as a child.
[Legal Issue]Previous consent orders. Urgent application following almost immediate failure to comply with orders.
Allegations of sexual abuse and violence against the father.
Allegations of manipulative and alienating behaviours against the mother.
Consideration of argument as to admissibility of statements attributable to the mother being made to Department of Communities officers and communicated to police officers – finding of admissibility – consideration of the objects of the Act and principles and application of relevant considerations – consideration of whether the behaviour of one or other of the parties constitutes an “unacceptable risk” to the children – determination on an interim basis that a risk of psychological harm of an unacceptable nature does arise – orders a
[Court Orders]Family Court judge Justice Peter Tree, “after eight days of trial before me of fiercely contested competing parenting applications relating to the parties’ six-year-old twin girls”, ordered that Mr Wylie have sole parental responsibility for the major long-term care of his children and that Ms Wylie ask her GP for referral to a psychiatrist. “I am satisfied, on the material before me, that the concerns which inevitably would otherwise have flowed from the mother’s notice of abuse, have
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Murphy J
Background: The mother has asserted that the child has been the subject of sexually improper behaviour by the father. This has included claims that the father had inserted items such as a fish hook, pizza and an electric cord into his anus, while in the presence of the child. After investigating the allegations, the police, the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (“the Department”), as well as the Independent Children’s Lawyer have each determined that the child had not been the subject of sexual misconduct by the father.
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Murphy J
Background: The mother has asserted that the child has been the subject of sexually improper behaviour by the father. This has included claims that the father had inserted items such as a fish hook, pizza and an electric cord into his anus, while in the presence of the child. After investigating the allegations, the police, the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (“the Department”), as well as the Independent Children’s Lawyer have each determined that the child had not been the subject of sexual misconduct by the father.
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Child Abduction, Hague Convention, International Relocation, Relocation
Judges: Forrest J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]That both the children be returned to the country of Cyprus.
Catchwords: Child Abduction, Hague Convention, International Relocation, Relocation
Judges: Forrest J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]That both the children be returned to the country of Cyprus.
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Child Abduction, Enforcement of Orders, Hague Convention, Relocation
Judges: Forrest J
Background: Four girls, aged between 9 and 14, moved to Australia with their mother in 2010. The mother got the father's consent for the trip by claiming that it was just a holiday. Since arriving she however has stated that she and the children wished to stay in Australia permanently. Their Italian father has been embroiled in a custody battle with the Sunshine Coast-based mother since finding out that the mother deceived him as to the nature of the trip. The girls' mother exercised a last ditch attempt to have a Family Court order the girls go back to Italy to face custody proceedings overturned.
[Legal Issue]The initial order to return the girls to Italy was made in line with the Hague Convention, which relates to international child abduction.
In the final proceedings before the Family Court, counsel for the Department of Community Services and Child Safety argued the order should not be overturned in fairness to every other family who had to abide by the Hague Convention.
The mother's legal team claimed the girls did not want to go back to Italy and their views had not properly been ascertained in an interview with a family court consultant.
[Court Orders]Justice Colin Forrest dismissed the mother's application to have an order the girls return to Italy discharged.
Justice Forrest ordered the girls be returned to the care of the Community Services Department and an official accompany the girls back to Italy.
Justice Forest also ordered the Italian father make an undertaking to withdraw any criminal complaints made in Italy against the mother and not make one in the future.
Catchwords: Child Abduction, Enforcement of Orders, Hague Convention, Relocation
Judges: Forrest J
Background: Four girls, aged between 9 and 14, moved to Australia with their mother in 2010. The mother got the father's consent for the trip by claiming that it was just a holiday. Since arriving she however has stated that she and the children wished to stay in Australia permanently. Their Italian father has been embroiled in a custody battle with the Sunshine Coast-based mother since finding out that the mother deceived him as to the nature of the trip. The girls' mother exercised a last ditch attempt to have a Family Court order the girls go back to Italy to face custody proceedings overturned.
[Legal Issue]The initial order to return the girls to Italy was made in line with the Hague Convention, which relates to international child abduction.
In the final proceedings before the Family Court, counsel for the Department of Community Services and Child Safety argued the order should not be overturned in fairness to every other family who had to abide by the Hague Convention.
The mother's legal team claimed the girls did not want to go back to Italy and their views had not properly been ascertained in an interview with a family court consultant.
[Court Orders]Justice Colin Forrest dismissed the mother's application to have an order the girls return to Italy discharged.
Justice Forrest ordered the girls be returned to the care of the Community Services Department and an official accompany the girls back to Italy.
Justice Forest also ordered the Italian father make an undertaking to withdraw any criminal complaints made in Italy against the mother and not make one in the future.
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Special Circumstances, Spousal Maintenance
Judges: Hughes FM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Special Circumstances, Spousal Maintenance
Judges: Hughes FM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Costs, De Facto Relationship
Judges: Bryant CJFaulks DCJFinn J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Appeal, Costs, De Facto Relationship
Judges: Bryant CJFaulks DCJFinn J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Responsibility, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsupervised contact with Child, With whom a child lives with, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bell J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Responsibility, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsupervised contact with Child, With whom a child lives with, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bell J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, Biological Father, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Children, In Vitro Fertilisation, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Paternity, Surrogacy
Judges: Ryan J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, Biological Father, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Children, In Vitro Fertilisation, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Paternity, Surrogacy
Judges: Ryan J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]