26 Sept 2022
The father failed to demonstrate that the proposed private/foreign expert evidence was necessary or sufficiently relevant to justify displacing government clinical psychological assessment; allowing the appointment would cause undue delay and would not be in the children's best interests, therefore both applications for appointment of the Family Separation Clinic are dismissed.
9 Mar 2016
Court accepted the childrens' ascertainable wishes to see their father more and accepted the SWO and SJE that shared care was feasible but found a full week-on/week-off regime too radical for the youngest child and would not meet the father's concerns about weekday involvement. Balancing welfare checklist factors and parental capacities, the court varied care and control to a structured shared arrangement: children to stay with father from Thursday after school until Saturday 8:30pm during term, with detailed safeguards (fixed daily contact window, consultation rules for ECAs, online calendar…
9 Jun 2010
Given the paramountcy of the child's welfare, the judge properly exercised discretion in ordering joint custody because both parents demonstrated ability and willingness to be involved, there was evidence of the child's desire to maintain a close bond with her father, and there was no evidence that cooperation on matters of consequence was destroyed; care and control was vested in the mother because shared physical custody would be a disruptive change; staying overnight access was removed because overnight stays would aggravate the child's anxiety, and access terms were varied accordingly.