Altman and Wicklow

This matter concerned parenting orders for children X and Y, born in 2007 and 2009 respectively. The dispute involved the arrangements for parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent with each parent. The decision was made by Judge Neville.

The court was required to determine the extent of parental responsibility each parent would have, where the children would live, and the specific arrangements for the children to spend time with their father. Additionally, the court needed to consider how information would be shared between the parents and address other matters relating to the children's welfare and the father's future engagement with them.

Judge Neville reasoned that the paramount consideration was the best interests of the children, with a particular emphasis on the court's protective responsibilities. This involved balancing the benefit of the children having a relationship with their father against the need to protect them from physical or psychological harm. The court noted a significant lack of evidence from the father regarding his current circumstances, mental health, and history of drug use, which hindered the court's ability to make positive findings about his capacity for unsupervised time with the children. Consequently, the court imposed strict conditions on the father's time with the children, including supervision and a requirement to undertake parenting courses and provide evidence of his mental health and drug testing results before any unsupervised time could be considered.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the children live with her. The father was granted limited, supervised time with the children four times per year for a period of three years, with the father bearing the cost of supervision. The father was also ordered to undertake parenting courses annually. After this three-year period, the father could apply to have his circumstances reviewed by a family consultant, subject to providing specific documentation including contact centre notes, proof of course completion, drug urinalysis results, and a report from his treating psychiatrist. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and the matter was finalised.