References: [1993] FamCA 87, (1993) FLC 92-415
Links: Austlii
Coram: Ellis, Lindemayer, Bell JJ
(Family Court of Australia) Whilst there is a legislative presumption regarding equal shared parental responsibility between parents there is no presumption in favour of parents (jointly or severally) as regards the placement of children nor a presumption in favour of a parent as regards their relationship with a child (such as by spending time or communicating with them) and whether judiciable controversy arises between parents or as regards a parent and a non-parent.
This case cites:
- Approved – Hodak -v- Newman and Hodak ((1993) 17 Fam LR 1, [1993] FamCA 83, (1993) FLC 92-421, Austlii)
(Family Court of Australia) Lindenburgh J said: ‘I am of the opinion that the fact of parenthood is to be regarded as an important and significant factor in considering which proposals better advance the welfare of the child. Such fact does not, . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL (Bailii, [2006] UKHL 43, Times 27-Jul-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2305, [2006] 1 AC 576, [2006] 1 FLR 601)
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . . - Cited – Re D (A Child) CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 315)
F appealed against the removal of his parental responsibility for his son. M and F were not married, but F had been named on the birth certificate. He had later been convicted of sexual assaults against two daughters of M by an earlier relationship. . .