FLAST CASE SUMMARY: Chard & Yong 2019: Parental responsibility – time spent with the Father – whether there should be supervised or unsupervised time – allegations of family violence raised by both parties
Chard & Yong [2019] FamCA 26 (25 January 2019)
FACTS:
- Mr Chard, and Ms Yong, have one child, X born in 2015.
- The parties married in 2014 and separated on 9 October 2016.
- Interim orders were made in the Federal Circuit Court providing for the child to live with her Mother and have supervised time with the Father.
- The Father has not been spending time with the child since May 2018, he contacted the Mother’s lawyer and wrote that he would no longer be attending B Group for time spent with the child.
- The Father has not had unsupervised time with his daughter since orders were made by consent in the Federal Circuit Court in March 2017.
- Both parties have allegations of domestic violence against each other.
- The Mother claims the Father has mental health issues.
- The Mother wants supervised visitations to protect the child from any harm that may be caused by neglect, in relation to the Father failing to care for her adequately, due to alleged mental health issues.
- The Father now seeks unsupervised visitations and shared parental responsibility for the interim orders, the father intends on seeking Final Orders that the child live with the parents in a shared care arrangement on a week-about basis.
ISSUE:
- Should there be supervised or unsupervised time with the Father?
HELD:
The father is to have supervised visitation until further orders.
The matter is listed for further interim hearing, for a period of two hours at 10am on 18 April 2019.
The Father sought orders for equal shared responsibility, nonetheless neither party made any submissions in relation to this however, the court states at [32] ‘during this interim period, the current position where there is no order in relation to parental responsibility, and thereby both parents hold parental responsibility, is preferable’.
The Mother said that despite there being no evidence that the Father has directly harmed or threatened harm to the child, supervision is justified, there was not a physical risk flowing from the Father, the concern was an emotional risk and neglect to the child.
Due to the significant time between visitations with the child, in conjunction with the father’s previous mental health service interactions, the court was uncertain how the father and daughters time spent together unsupervised would unfold.
The court agreed with the ICL’s position that the father should be supervised for a period of time with a return date to court to be re-evaluated, there it will be determined whether the father should move forward with unsupervised visitations.
