ASHWOOD & PETERS

In this matter before Johns J, the father sought supervised time with the child, proposing a private contact supervisor. The mother opposed this, advocating for supervision by a contact centre. The father had a history of incarceration for sexual offences, and the mother alleged sexual abuse of the child by the father. The proposed private supervisor was aware of these allegations and the father's history, whereas a contact centre would be unable to provide ongoing supervision.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim arrangements for the father's time with the child, specifically whether supervision should be by a private contact supervisor or a contact centre, and to consider the implications of the serious allegations and the father's criminal history. Additionally, the court had to address the father's application for written authorisation from the mother for medical practitioners and allied health professionals to communicate with him regarding the child, as the mother had only provided verbal authorisation.

Johns J reasoned that the specific circumstances, including the nature of the allegations and the father's history, necessitated a tailored approach to supervision. The court found that a private supervisor, informed of the relevant background, could provide the necessary oversight, and that a contact centre's limitations made it unsuitable for continued supervision in this case. The court applied principles relating to the paramountcy of the child's welfare in determining interim contact arrangements. Regarding the medical information, the court ordered the mother to provide a list of the child's treating practitioners and to grant written authorisation for them to communicate with the father.

The court ordered that the father's time with the child be supervised by a professional supervisor nominated by C Family Services, with the father responsible for all associated costs. The father was to have at least two hours of supervised time per fortnight, with seven days' notice to the mother. The Independent Children's Lawyer was directed to provide relevant documents to C Family Services. The mother was ordered to provide the father with a list of the child's medical practitioners and written authorisation for them to communicate with the father. The father's application and the mother's response were otherwise dismissed.