Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Goode & Goode Revisited (Interim)

Justice Ryan leaves a few points to be desired. There are also a number of inconsistencies and inferences that should be discussed.

The Judgement in the reheard Goode & Goode Interim hearing has been published.

Goode & Goode No 2 - Rehearing for Interim Orders

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!

Judgement or Rehash ?

The judgement by Justice Ryan leaves a few points to be desired. There are also a number of inconsistencies and inferences.

At Para 18 Ryan J makes an issue, relating to school holiday time: "Although the children have been in his care, the father has not been able to reduce his working hours below between 12 and 16 hours each week. While the father has been at work his parents have cared for the children."

At para 27 Ryan J makes light of the father staying home for a week to care for a child while the mother stayed at hospital with the other child who was ill.

At para 36 Ryan J comments that the children's view's carry no weight because of their age. Ryan shows a very poor understanding of how deeply very young children can hold an opinion and hold on to that opinion for a very long time.

At para 37 Ryan J comments about "Primary Attachments", and places considerable weight on the notion. Logic would of course suggest that if a meaningful relationship was necessary with both parents then the Fathers involvement would need to be more often and of greater duration to make up for the child not seeing the father most if not all days as would be NORMAL in an intact family. Attachment theory is based on 2 main premises being both quality and quantity of time.

At para 39 Ryan J misses a very important point. One parent arbitrarily imposing care arrangements on the other is NOT sharing responsibility which IS a presumption until a court order specifically takes it away. To fail to address this issue particularly continues the pattern of arbitrary action by one parent which redefine and limits the child's relationship with other parent.

At Parra 40 "Routine" for the sake of Routine rears its ugly head.

At Parra 49 Ryan J comments "I am concerned that even bringing all his love and skills to bear, he may not have the ability to meet J's possible emotional need to be more significantly in his mothers care" - a rehash of the "Tender Years Doctrine" which originally was a government propaganda campaign to to get mother out of the workforce to open up jobs for the returning servicemen after WW2.

At parra 56 Ryan J suggest they consult a "Social Scientist" experienced in family breakdown and child development to obtain information about the type of long term living arrangements that might suit their children. It is truly a shame that genuine experts in the field of shared care - post separation, are very rare.
My assessment of this Judgement is that it has been made by a "Technical Theorist" with very little real world understanding.
I hope Goode and Goode appeal again, while it is an atrocious waste of resources that would better have been spent directly on the children, the Judgement has too many inconsistencies.
An appeal was launched as the orders were not made in accordance with the revisions to the Act, especially around interim orders where shared parental responsibility orders (given) flow to section 65DAA substantial time (Which is not weekend time).

However we now see an early hearing has been  set down. Details to follow.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
MikeT kindly offered me 'goode' wishes on my Birthday.

We often use this additive 'e' to illustrate certain positive events.

Perhaps? the time has come? to further elaborate on the final outcome of Goode & Goode?

That 'lovely' (in an Audrey Hepburn way) 'interim' precedent so commonly used in recent judgements needs to be balanced with the final UNREPORTED outcome.

SECSPCA and 'us' others have met with the Paternal side while it was 'all on' and Justice Judy Ryan (who seems to have changed since she took on the wig and gown) played around with the hearings after giving Justice David Collier a 'thank you' payback for "King & Finneran".

Outcome = Court screwed up

Kids Outcome = Shared Care

Winners = Kids (that's the only outcome that really counts)

(This somewhat cryptic post is of course aimed towards those people from the Court system that regularly read this site.)

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets