By Craig Nicol and Keleigh Robinson -
Key decisions
- Chiles & Petrenko [2024] FedCFamC1A 112
- Roydon [2024] FedCFamC1A 105
- Carlyon & Graham [2024] FedCFamC1F 443
- Tauber & Farrens [2024] FedCFamC2F 792
CHILDREN
Father with ‘astonishing history of traffic-related offences’ successfully appealed order for supervised overnight time – no cogent reason for finding welfare risk different at night than during the day
In Chiles & Petrenko [2024] FedCFamC1A 112 (12 July 2024), Tree J, sitting in the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, allowed in part a father’s appeal from a final parenting order in respect of the parties’ nine-year-old son (‘X’).
The orders granted the mother sole decision-making and that X live with her and spend time with the father for four nights per fortnight and extended school holidays, save that the father’s time was to be supervised by the paternal grandparents between 8.30 pm and 9 am (at [2] and [16]). The father appealed the supervision requirement for overnight time.