26 Nov 2021
Leave was refused because the father failed to demonstrate any legal error, misapprehension of fact, consideration of irrelevant matters, failure to exercise discretion, or other demonstrable mistake in the trial judge's exercise of discretion; accordingly the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2).
14 Sept 2021
Having applied the best‑interests principle and considered successive social welfare reports and the expressed wishes of the children, the court retained the status quo as being in the children's best interests: father awarded sole care and control of the elder daughter; mother awarded sole care and control of the younger daughter; joint custody was inappropriate given entrenched poor parental communication; access ordered as per the social worker's schedule with supervision by the social welfare investigator for one year.
30 Dec 2020
Leave to appeal refused because the mother's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success and there were no other compelling reasons to permit an appeal; the judge's original decision must stand because it was grounded on the child's best interests, the social worker's report that the child was well cared for and settled with the father, and the mother's lack of a realistic, supported care plan.
26 Jun 2018
Applying the paramount principle of the child's best interests and weighing the social welfare reports and evidence, the court found the parents lacked a reliable cooperative basis for joint day-to-day care; evidence showed the father was better placed to meet the child's ongoing needs (greater involvement, resources, support and educational oversight) while the mother's shortcomings posed a risk to quality of care. Therefore awarding sole care and control to the father, while keeping joint guardianship and granting the mother reasonable access, was necessary to secure the child's best intere…
30 Sept 1976
On the facts the court awarded custody of the boy S to his father and custody of the three daughters P, J and B to their mother because this arrangement best served the children's welfare given their settled living arrangements, the expressed wishes of the children and the special circumstances of the family; neither parent was found unfit and general gender presumptions were not applied as binding rules.