-
In WENZ & ALBERG [2018] FCCA 2765, significant family violence was claimed through false statements made by the mother to the Police in order to block time with the father (a common punishment or inducement to agree to certain property issues). Notwithstanding, Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 at [65] provided an excellent summation of the importance of 'time' and a short exert is as follows:
7. The concept of “substantial and significant” time is
defined in s 65DAA to mean:
(a) the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii) days that do not fall on weekends and holidays;
and
(b) the time the child spends with the parent allows the
parent to be involved in:
(i) the child’s daily routine; and
(ii) occasions and events that are of particular
significance to the child; and
(c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the
child to be involved in occasions and events that are of
special significance to the parent.In my study where DV is claimed with no evidence other than an Affidavit of the affected parent, Goode v Goode has featured prominently as has Rice & Asplund.
It is my current position that, at it's simplest, Goode is best served (where equal time and equal shared parental responsibility has been established by way of Order) by each parent having equal access to weekday and weekend time (7 and 7). In doing so, the extra-curricular activities that school-age children undertake during the week and on weekends will, in most cases, be attended equally by the parents (unless agreed otherwise for unforeseen circumstances etc) which is 'in the child's best interests' as there is a balanced parenting approach.
Even a departure from R&A appears to favour the balanced approach in lieu of particular impediments such as what you've discussed, eloquently, above.
Where my difficulty arises is when children are being traded as 'property' ie: extra time will be given if certain property issues are dealt with in the favour of one parent over the other.
I am also interested in your (and others) opinions on how one would overcome an application-in-a-case under R&A where all things are Ordered to be equal, but one parent has no desire to have 'significant and meaningful time' as it applies to Goode.
It's a strange proposition which would beg the question: why would one parent not want meaningful time with their children when there is absolutely no impediment other than a lack of desire?
If you (any of you) were arguing for this absentee-parent, what would be your 'go to' argument/s??
-
Goode v Goode is the seminal case for dealing with such matters, so any argument involving equal shared parental responsibility and the child’s best interests will often cite this case.
As the Children get older their own views will be considered by the Court so the argument will be what is important, significant and valuable to the child, therefore any arguments ought to be Child focussed and what is in their best interests.
As meaningful is a qualitative adjective, not strictly a quantitative one it lends to the argument that significant and meaningful time is about quality time as much as it is quantity and this is why the wishes expressed by the Children become more and more valueable as they get older.
This is why the Court may take the “present relationship approach”, which involves making findings as to the nature of the child’s relationship with both of the child’s parents as at the date of the hearing, findings which are ultimately reflected in the orders, may also be relevant.
Disclaimer.
Any such arguments really must be discussed with your lawyer as we are getting into complex areas of law that you would not want to try argue without legal advice and for the record none of the above should be construed as legal advice, it is purely legal information extracted from case law for you to consider talking to your lawyer about.
-
