Parenting Battle: Disputing FaceTime Arrangements for X and Y
Daymond & Joslyn (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 904 (17 November 2022)
This is a case about the parenting arrangements for two children, X and Y, and their parents, Ms. Daymond and Mr. Joslyn. An Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) and a child psychiatrist, Dr. D, have been appointed and have produced reports on the situation. The current court orders require the children to have supervised time with the father on Sundays and FaceTime communication with him on Wednesdays. The mother seeks to end the FaceTime communication and the ICL supports her, while the father proposes reducing it to fortnightly.
Facts:
This is a legal case about the parenting arrangements for two children, X (14 years old) and Y (12 years old), and their parents, Ms. Daymond (the mother) and Mr. Joslyn (the father). An Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) has been appointed for the children, and a child psychiatrist, Dr. D, has produced two reports, with the latest one dated 31 October 2022.
The current court orders made on 12 February 2021 require the children to spend time with their father on Sundays, under professional supervision, and to communicate with him via FaceTime every Wednesday. The father was convicted and incarcerated for sexual offences against a minor served a term of imprisonment, but was released on parole in late 2022, and the supervised time with the children resumed.
The mother filed an application on 19 July 2022 seeking to reduce the frequency of the supervised time with the father, which was resolved by agreement and the court orders were changed to fortnightly, following Dr. D's recommendation. The mother, the ICL, and the father agreed to provide copies of Dr. D's report to the father's treating therapists and the children's therapists.
The mother now seeks to end the orders for FaceTime communication with the father, which is supported by the ICL and opposed by the father, who proposes reducing the FaceTime to fortnightly. Dr. D recommends ceasing the FaceTime communication, stating concern about the father's lack of insight into other people's personal space and the negative impact it may have on the children.
Issue:
The issue in this case concerns the parenting arrangements for two children, X (14 years old) and Y (12 years old), whose parents are Ms Daymond (mother) and Mr Joslyn (father). The mother is seeking to discharge the current order for FaceTime communication between the children and the father, which is opposed by the father who proposes reducing it to fortnightly contact. The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) supports the mother's application, while a single expert child psychiatrist, Dr D, recommends that the FaceTime contact cease.
Applicable law:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.62B and s.65DA(2) - pursuant to which the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in the Annexure and these particulars are included in the Orders.
Analysis:
The case concerns the parenting arrangements for two children, X (14 years old) and Y (12 years old). An Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) and a single expert child psychiatrist, Dr D, have been involved. The current orders provide for weekly FaceTime communication with the father, but the mother and the ICL seek to have these calls ceased. Dr D supports this recommendation, citing the children's unsettled behavior before and after FaceTime calls. However, the available evidence does not support the cessation of FaceTime calls and it is proposed to reduce the calls to fortnightly, as suggested by the father.
Conclusion:
The Order made on February 12, 2021 has been changed so that the children will have FaceTime contact with their father every other Wednesday from 7:00 pm to 7:15 pm, before their alternate Sunday visits with the father. The details of the obligations and consequences for violating the Orders are outlined in the Annexure and are considered part of the Orders, according to sections 62B and 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 in Australia.
Case: Daymond & Joslyn (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 904
Judgment of: REES J
Counsels:
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Williams KC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Broun Abrahams Burreket
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Dura
Solicitor for the Respondent: Karras Partners Lawyers
Independent Children’s Lawyer: El Baba Lawyers Pty Ltd