Federal Circuit Court of Australia emblem
1: Wands & Vine [2015] FCCA 221 | February 3, 2015
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Contravention, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parenting Orders
Judges:  Scarlett J


Background: This is an application to deal with the Respondent Mother for contravention of a parenting order, which was one of a series of orders made on 17th December 2013 after a Defendant Hearing. The order provided that the Father would spend time with the child [X] on the Father’s birthday for a period of a number of hours on [date omitted] 2014. That time did not take place. The Mother, with the benefit of legal advice, has conceded that contravention and no reasonable excuse has been established, although I have heard submissions in mitigation from the Mother’s solicitor. 
 
  [Legal Issue]Children – parenting orders – contravention of parenting orders – orders – where mother has previously contravened parenting orders – whether make up time should be allowed – whether injunction should be ordered against the mother in respect of the child’s school.   [Court Orders]The Respondent Mother did on 24 May 2014 without reasonable excuse contravene Order (5)(e) made on 17 December 2013 in that she failed to allow the Father to spend time with the child [X]. In respect of the above contravention the Mother is required to enter into a bond under the provisions of section 70NEC of the Family Law Act 1975 without surety or security for a period of eighteen (18) months on the condition that she abide by all current parenting Orders. By way of make-up time the Ap     


[  ] Download Decision

Federal Circuit Court of Australia emblem
2: Ridgely & Stiller [2014] FCCA 2668 | November 19, 2014
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Emotional Abuse, Equal Shared Parental Responsibility, Meaningful Relationship, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parenting Orders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Substantial and Significant Time, Unacceptable Risk, With whom a child spends time with
Judges:  Bender J


Background: The parents separated in 2007 after five years together. The child had lived with the mother since her parents separated when she was 13 months old. Since the separation, the mother engaged in an unrelenting campaign to undermine the child’s relationship with her father, causing the child significant distress. The mother interfered with her daughter’s court-ordered parenting time with her father, often resulting in the child not seeing her father for months at a time.  
 
  [Legal Issue]These proceedings primarily hinged on Section 60CC (2)(a), where the court is required to consider the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents. This section was particularly relevant given that the mother prevented and was likely to continue preventing the child to have a meaningful relation with her father.   [Court Orders]The child, who had lived with her mother since her parents separated when she was 13 months old, shall live with father and spend time with the mother. The father shall have sole parental responsibility in relation to health and education, and otherwise the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility.     


[  ] Download Decision

Family Court of Australia emblem
4: Green & Hann [2010] FamCA 747 | August 25, 2010
Court or Tribunal: 
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     


[  ] Download Decision

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
5: Simpson & Brockmann [2010] FamCAFC 37 | March 3, 2010
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Appeal, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Contravention, Meaningful Relationship, Non-Parent, Parentage, Parental, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Relocation, Same Sex Parents, Same Sex Relationship, Step Parent
Judges:  Coleman JJarrett FMMay JWarnick J


Background: Two women had lived in an intimate relationship for 9 years and two children were born during this time using IVF, with each woman being the biological parent of one child (same sex relationship). One woman then left the relationship taking her birth child with her. Orders were issued for the two children to spend significant time with the other woman and to see their sibling. One woman then relocated further away making the order impractical and the other woman appealed arguing that the first woman was not facilitating an ongoing meaningful relationship between her and the child whom she considered that she had parented.  
 
  [Legal Issue]Each woman claimed to be a parent of the other’s child, although the trial judge found to the contrary as only a biological parent or an adoptive parent meets the legal definition of being a parent. Both women submitted that each child regarded each of the women as a mother. The Appeal Court found that if a child is born by an artificial conception procedure while the woman is married to a man and the procedure is carried out with the joint consent of both adults, then the child is their child for the purposes of the Act, or both the woman and man are parents of the child. The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.   [Court Orders]The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.     


[  ] Download Decision

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
6: Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 | December 15, 2006
Court or Tribunal: 
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     


[  ] Download Decision