Arman and Arman

The case of *Arman and Arman* involved an application before Dessau J in the Family Court of Australia concerning interim parenting arrangements for two sons. The parents had separated approximately five months prior, and the father was seeking increased time with the children, ultimately aiming for a shared care arrangement. The mother raised serious allegations against the father, including a lack of involvement in the children's day-to-day care, concerns about alcohol abuse, and allegations of domestic violence and denigration of her in the children's presence, supported by a current intervention order.

The primary legal issues before the court were how to determine interim parenting arrangements in light of the conflicting allegations and the recent amendments to the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the promotion of a "meaningful relationship" between parents and children and the protection of children from harm. The court was required to consider the impact of the *Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act* on interim proceedings and how to balance the principle of maintaining the status quo with the need to protect the children's safety and well-being, given the limited information available at this early stage.

Dessau J reasoned that, due to the significant allegations and the lack of comprehensive information, it was not possible to make definitive determinations regarding the children's best interests or the father's parenting capacity. The court acknowledged the importance of a meaningful relationship under s 60CC(2)(a) of the *Family Law Act*, but also highlighted the paramount need to protect children from harm under s 60CC(2)(b). Given the limited material, the judge considered that maintaining stability for the children was crucial, and altering current arrangements might necessitate further changes, which would not be in their best interests. The court emphasised the necessity of a family report to gather further information, including the children's views and the nature of their relationships with each parent, before making more substantial decisions.

Consequently, the court made orders for the parties and children to attend a psychologist for a family report, with costs shared equally. The father was ordered to attend a parenting course, and interim contact arrangements were varied to substitute Monday contact with Thursday evenings, with additional specific weekend time granted to the father. Crucially, both parents were restrained from denigrating each other or discussing the proceedings in the presence or hearing of the children. All extant applications were adjourned pending the family report, and the father was ordered to file his financial statement. The notation indicated that the father's request for outright contact was deferred until after the family report.