Appleton & Appleton

In the matter of *Appleton & Appleton*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing interim applications concerning the parties' two daughters, aged 17 and 12. The dispute arose following allegations that the father had inappropriately touched the elder child whilst he was asleep. Previous consent orders from 2013 stipulated that the children spend time with the father on alternate weekends and every Wednesday.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting arrangements for the children, balancing the alleged risk of harm against the benefit of maintaining the children's relationship with their father. Specifically, the court had to consider the younger child's anxiety and the potential impact of spending time with her father, while also addressing the need for the elder child to access therapy and for relevant information to be disclosed to a professional assisting the younger child.

Cleary J applied a cautious approach, acknowledging the obligation to balance competing risks. The court reasoned that the younger child would benefit from short periods of contact with her father in a safe and supervised setting, aiming to reduce her anxiety. The court also made orders for the elder child to access therapy and for a Family Report to be prepared. No specific orders were made concerning the elder child's direct contact with the father at this interim stage.

By consent, the court made orders that included restraining the parties from discussing the proceedings with the children, encouraging the elder child to access therapy, and authorising a professional to discuss the allegations with the younger child. Interim contact for the younger child with the father was ordered to occur on alternate Sundays for one hour, supervised by the paternal grandparents, and communication by text was permitted, provided certain topics were avoided. An Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed to represent the interests of both children.