Cases published February 2016

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Family Court of Australia Full Court
Gilles & Irby [2016] FamCAFC 13 ‐ 11 Feb 2016
Parenting– interim orders – where the appellant mother reviewed the Senior Registrar’s
orders which placed the child on the Family Law Watchlist – where the trial judge ordered
that, in addition to the Senior Registrar’s orders, the mother should also be placed on the
Family Law Watchlist – where the Full Court found that trial judge had an obligation to clarify
the orders sought, an obligation to explain those orders to the self‐represented mother as a
means of ensuring that the mother understood the additional case she was meeting, and
finally, to afford the mother an opportunity to consider the same and respond.
Pavlek & Spice [2016] FamCAFC 8 ‐ 4 Feb 2016
Parenting – where the father alleges the child made a disclosure that the maternal
grandfather touched her inappropriately – where the JIRT investigation found there was no
risk of harm – where the mother agreed not to leave the children in the unsupervised care of
the maternal grandfather but admitted to doing so on occasion – where the trial judge found
that the mother would not comply with an undertaking not to leave the children in the care
of the maternal grandfather and made an order restraining her from doing so – where there
was insufficient evidence to make any finding as to the risk posed by the maternal grandfather
– where the trial judge provided no reasons to support the making of the injunction – appeal
in relation to parenting order allowed.
Family Court of Australia
Koehler & Koehler [2016] FamCA 60 ‐ 11 Feb 2016
Parenting – jurisdiction – where previous proceedings instituted by the State Central
Authority at the request of the father for the return of the child have been dismissed –
consideration of whether the child is habitually resident in Australia pursuant to s111CD of
the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the child has lived in Australia for two years and the
evidence indicates she is settled in Australia – finding that the Court has jurisdiction.
Parenting – best interests – where the mother seeks to proceed on an undefended basis for
parenting orders – where the father has failed to comply with orders and did not appear at
the final hearing – where the father has instituted criminal proceedings in Germany that
prevent the mother from returning to Germany without being arrested – where the mother
alleges that the father poses a risk to the child – where the orders proposed by the mother
will facilitate the father spending time and communicating with the child in Australia and via
Skype – final orders made that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the
father spend time with the child in Australia.

Turnley & Gibb [2016] FamCA 53 ‐ 5 Feb 2016
Parenting – review of a decision of a Senior Registrar – interim parenting – where there is one
child who is ten years of age – where final parenting orders had been made in April 2015 that
the father have sole parental responsibility of the child, that the child live with him and spend
time with the mother – where the Senior Registrar made an order that the child be returned
to his father’s care and a recovery order issued – where the mother seeks orders on an interim
basis for sole parental responsibility, that the child live with her and spend time with the
father – where it was found that to make orders for the child to live with the mother would
be likely to expose him to an unacceptable risk of family violence – where the behaviour by
the father is inconsistent with what the Court would expect from a parent in whom it has
placed sole parental responsibility – where there is no alternative than to leave the child in
the care of the father – where the Court requests the Secretary, Department of Family and
Community Services to intervene in these proceedings – orders made that pending further
order the father have sole parental responsibility, that the child live with the father and spend
time with the mother each alternate Saturday.
Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Wunscher & Licha [2016] FCCA 180 ‐ 11 February 2016
Parenting– change in circumstances – best interests of the child – sole parental responsibility
– psychological, emotional and psychiatric impact on the child if the child was to live or spend
time with the mother – restraint against contacting and/or communicating with the child
unless expressly invited – restraint from contacting child’s medical practitioners – restraint
against obtaining child’s medical information.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]