Substantial and Significant Time
1: Lees & Lees [2012] FMCAfam 1074 | October 10, 2012
Court or Tribunal: Family Law Division of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Catchwords: Shared Parenting, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges: Whelan FM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Shared Parenting, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges: Whelan FM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
2: Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 | December 15, 2006
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Equal Parenting Time, Equal Shared Parental Responsibility, Interim Parenting Orders, Parenting Orders, Shared Parenting, Sole Parental Responsibility, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges: Boland JBryant CJFinn J
Background: The parties were married in July 1996 and although there was a separation in December 1999 they finally separated in late May 2006. While there was some dispute as to the circumstances of the separation, the facts allowed the judge at first instance to find that the appellant father chose to leave the matrimonial home and bring the marriage to an end. Thereafter there was some dispute as to what happened in relation to the care of the children. Collier J recorded that the respondent mother asserted that after a period of time the parties reached an agreement and the appellant father commenced spending time with the children on each alternate weekend. The appellant father’s case was that the respondent mother removed the children from him and made it very difficult for him to have
[Legal Issue]This is an appeal by the father against a decision for interim orders.
In this case the Judge in the previous decision did not apply the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, as stipulated in the family law act, nor did he consider what was in the child's best interests, as listed in the primary and additional considerations in the family law act.
Instead the Judge applied the principle previously determined in Cowling v Cowling [1998] FamCA 19, commonly referred to as the "Status Quo". The principle of Status Quo determined that if a child was in a well-settled environment, the child's arrangements should not be altered.
As such, the Judge determined that in interim hearings, the Status Quo should be the prevailing principle, not what was determined to be in the
[Court Orders]The Full Court of the Family Court determined that the appeal was successful, and that:
(1) The presumption that an order for equal shared parental responsibility will be in the child’s best interests still applies in interim cases, even if neither party asks for such an order.
(2) Where that presumption is applied, the Court must still, at an interim hearing, consider the practicality of the child spending equal time with each of the parents under Section 65AA of the Act.
(3) Even wh
Catchwords: Appeal, Equal Parenting Time, Equal Shared Parental Responsibility, Interim Parenting Orders, Parenting Orders, Shared Parenting, Sole Parental Responsibility, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges: Boland JBryant CJFinn J
Background: The parties were married in July 1996 and although there was a separation in December 1999 they finally separated in late May 2006. While there was some dispute as to the circumstances of the separation, the facts allowed the judge at first instance to find that the appellant father chose to leave the matrimonial home and bring the marriage to an end. Thereafter there was some dispute as to what happened in relation to the care of the children. Collier J recorded that the respondent mother asserted that after a period of time the parties reached an agreement and the appellant father commenced spending time with the children on each alternate weekend. The appellant father’s case was that the respondent mother removed the children from him and made it very difficult for him to have
[Legal Issue]This is an appeal by the father against a decision for interim orders.
In this case the Judge in the previous decision did not apply the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, as stipulated in the family law act, nor did he consider what was in the child's best interests, as listed in the primary and additional considerations in the family law act.
Instead the Judge applied the principle previously determined in Cowling v Cowling [1998] FamCA 19, commonly referred to as the "Status Quo". The principle of Status Quo determined that if a child was in a well-settled environment, the child's arrangements should not be altered.
As such, the Judge determined that in interim hearings, the Status Quo should be the prevailing principle, not what was determined to be in the
[Court Orders]The Full Court of the Family Court determined that the appeal was successful, and that:
(1) The presumption that an order for equal shared parental responsibility will be in the child’s best interests still applies in interim cases, even if neither party asks for such an order.
(2) Where that presumption is applied, the Court must still, at an interim hearing, consider the practicality of the child spending equal time with each of the parents under Section 65AA of the Act.
(3) Even wh