Aldrich and Bingley (No. 2)

This case concerned an application by the father, Mr Aldrich, for extended unsupervised time with his three children, C, S, and D, against the opposition of the mother, Ms Bingley. The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Dawe, was required to determine interim orders regarding the children's time with their father, pending the final determination of the matter.

The central legal issue was to ascertain what interim orders for the children to spend time with their father would be in the best interests of C, S, and D, a paramount consideration under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved balancing the benefit of the children maintaining a meaningful relationship with their father against the need to protect them from harm, including psychological and emotional harm, as alleged by the mother due to the father's past behaviour and views. The court also had to consider the children's wishes and the recommendations of a Family Report.

Justice Dawe reasoned that while the mother raised significant concerns about the father's alleged past violence, controlling behaviour, and inappropriate religious views, the court was not in a position to make findings on these disputed matters at the interim stage. However, the court noted the Family Report's observations that the children enjoyed their supervised time with their father and expressed a preference for spending time with him. Considering the children's ages, their wishes, and the success of supervised contact, the court determined that a gradual introduction of limited unsupervised time was in their best interests. Consequently, by consent, final orders were made for the children to live with the mother, and interim orders were made for the father to spend time with the children each Saturday from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm, with handovers to occur at a Children's Contact Service to minimise parental contact. An injunction was also granted restraining the father from questioning the children about the proceedings or their living arrangements. The court explicitly stated that no overnight time orders would be made at this stage, favouring a gradual approach.