Aiden and Grant

In the matter of Aiden and Grant, Bennett J considered orders relating to the welfare and communication arrangements for a child, V. The dispute involved the parents' arrangements for communication with V and V's therapeutic counselling.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the variation of existing communication orders, the facilitation of therapeutic counselling for V, the provision of relevant documents to the counsellor, parental engagement in the counselling process, the payment of counselling costs, and the mother's application for altered supervised time arrangements. The court also considered whether the proceedings were vexatious and the mother's contribution to the costs of the independent children's lawyer and the father.

Bennett J's reasoning led to a series of consent orders and declarations. The court varied the order regarding telephone communication, stipulating that the mother would initiate calls to the father's mobile, and the father would ensure V's availability. Orders were made to facilitate V's attendance and engagement in therapeutic counselling with Dr T, including the provision of authority and relevant reports to the psychologist, parental participation, and the father's payment of out-of-pocket expenses for consultations. The mother's oral application for altered supervised time was dismissed, and her application to review a prior decision was permitted to be withdrawn. Crucially, the court declared the proceedings to be vexatious under section 102Q of the *Family Law Act 1975*.

The court ordered the mother to contribute $900 each to the costs of the independent children's lawyer and the father, totalling $1800, to be paid within 60 days. The orders also included a fact sheet detailing contravention consequences and assistance for compliance. The court noted the mother's refusal to comply with a prior order regarding particulars and scheduled the matter for a further hearing.