ASPLEY & ASPLEY

In the matter of *Aspley & Aspley*, Judge Scarlett of the Family Court of Australia considered an application to vary existing consent orders concerning the parenting of a child, X, aged one year and ten months. The dispute centred on the terms of interim parenting orders, specifically whether the father's time with the child should be supervised or occur in the presence of other adults, given the father's reported drug and alcohol issues.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, in light of the father's substance abuse concerns and the mother's application to vary the existing consent orders. Key issues included the appropriate level of supervision for the father's time with X and the specific conditions to be imposed on that time to ensure the child's safety and welfare. The court also considered the need for a Family Report to assist in determining future parenting arrangements.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that the child's best interests necessitated a modification of the previous orders. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the protection of children from harm. The father's time with X was significantly restricted and required supervision by his parents, Ms V and Mr J, or the mother, depending on the specific day and circumstances. Furthermore, the father was ordered to undergo weekly chain of custody urine drug screens and provide the results to the mother's solicitors. The court also directed the parties to attend a Family Consultant for a report addressing the child's relationship with each parent and the risks associated with the father's drug and alcohol use.

The court made interim orders vacating the previous consent orders and stipulating that the child X would live with the Respondent Mother. The Applicant Father's time with X was detailed, including specific days, times, and the mandatory presence of a supervisor. The orders also included provisions for notification of illness, changes of address, and the father's compliance with drug testing. A final hearing was scheduled, and directions were given regarding the filing of affidavits and the potential need for cross-examination of the Family Consultant.