2 total
Summary judgment granted for sole decision-making and primary residence; restraining order denied due to lack of imminent risk.
The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of the child, and a restraining order against the respondent mother.
The mother, whose whereabouts were unknown and who had not seen the child since 2019 due to severe mental health issues and child protection involvement, did not participate.
The court granted summary judgment for sole decision-making and primary residence, finding it in the child's best interests.
The request for a restraining order was dismissed as there was no evidence of imminent risk, given the mother's prolonged absence.
Motion to add father's extended family as collateral respondents granted to determine restraining order claims.
The respondent mother in a high-conflict custody dispute moved to add the applicant father's new partner, sister, and mother as collateral respondents to her motion to change.
She sought a restraining order against them, alleging they colluded with the father to alienate the children from her.
The court granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules and the Children's Law Reform Act.
The court applied the Worrall factors, concluding the collateral respondents were necessary parties and that the exceptional circumstances of the case justified their addition despite the impending trial date.
