Sibling split – Sully & Sully and Anor

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – final orders – where the children are Aboriginal – where the sibling group is split – where the two older children live with the grandmother and three younger children live with the mother – where the grandmother seeks orders for all children to live with her – where the mother seeks orders for the three younger children to remain in her care – where the father seeks unsupervised time with the three younger children – where there are allegations of drug and alcohol abuse, family violence, child sexual abuse and alienation – where there is a high level of dysfunction between the parties – where there are multiple family reports – where it is recommended that the parties promote a relationship between the sibling group – where the independent children’s lawyer promotes the currently living situation with regular sibling unification – where consideration is given to the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration – where the additional considerations are outlined and deliberated – where orders are made for parental responsibility – where it is ordered that the two older children live with the grandmother and the three younger children live with the mother – where detailed orders are made for time spent – where it is ordered that on two occasions per year the sibling group spend time together.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – family violence – where the father admits a history of extreme and damaging domestic violence perpetrated against the mother – where consideration is given to what impact the father’s history of domestic violence should have on the orders he seeks – where the father lacks insight into what impact his behaviour has on the children – where the father is so inculcated into an environment where family violence is the norm that he has suffered a level of desensitisation – where consideration is given to the unacceptable risk of harm to children in seeing violent behaviour – where the father’s evidence was unconvincing and unreliable – where orders are sought for the father to undergo counselling and a parenting course and that his time with the children be supervised – where the family consultant does not consider the father’s violent history a barrier to the children spending time with him on an unsupervised basis – where consideration is given to the allegations and history of domestic violence in applying the best interests test – where it is ordered that the father attend anger management, domestic violence and substance abuse counselling before spending supervised time with the children on a gradually increasing basis.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AB, s 60A, s 60B, s 60CA, s 60CC, s 65DAA, s 67U, s 69ZN, s 69ZQ, s 69ZR, s 69ZT
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Amador v Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196; (2009) 43 Fam LR 268
Stormount & Stormount and Ors [2012] FamCA 83
T & N [2003] FamCA 1129; (2003) FLC 93-172Eastealam, P. and Grey, D. ‘Risk of harm to children from exposure to family violence: looking at how it is understood and considered by the judiciary’ Australian Journal of Family Law, vol 27 (2013) at 59

The Honourable Justice Strickland and Murray, K. ‘A judicial perspective on the Australian family violence reforms 12 months on’ Australian Journal of Family Law, vol 28 (2014) at 47

Ms A Sully

Ms B Sully

Mr Winter

Mark Whelan Lawyer

DUC

215

of

2010

16 December 2015

Adelaide

Adelaide

Berman J

15, 16, 17, 18, 19 December 2014, 20 February 2015, 7,8, 9 and 10 September 2015