Azizi & Hammoud

In the matter of Azizi and Hammoud, heard before Newbrun J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two young children, X (born 2015) and Y (born 2014). The applicant father and respondent mother sought orders regarding parental responsibility, living arrangements, and contact with the children. The proceedings were initiated following the parties' separation in March 2016, which the mother described as occurring due to fear for her safety.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues, including the allocation of sole parental responsibility, the children's living arrangements, the extent and nature of the father's contact with the children, and the imposition of injunctions to protect the mother and children. Additionally, the court considered issues relating to the children's names, international travel, and the provision of information about the children to the father. The court also had to assess the weight to be given to the children's views, the nature of the parent-child relationships, the parents' past involvement in decision-making and spending time with the children, their fulfillment of maintenance obligations, and the likely effect of any changes in the children's circumstances.

Newbrun J applied the paramountcy principle of the children's best interests, as enshrined in Section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court gave significant weight to the need to protect the children, noting the mother's fear of the father on the day of separation and the father's detention by immigration authorities. The court found that the children lacked sufficient maturity to have their views given significant weight, a conclusion supported by expert and family report evidence. The court also considered the meaningful relationship primary consideration, noting the children's close relationship with the mother's extended family and the limited supervised time the father had spent with the children since separation. The court concluded that the children would not experience significant emotional harm from spending only identity contact time with the father, given their prior experience of supervised contact.

The court made orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility and stipulating that the children live with her. The father was ordered to spend no time with the children, except for supervised identity contact on three occasions per year, for which he was to pay the fees. Injunctions were granted restraining the father from approaching or contacting the mother or children except through legal practitioners, and from coming within 200 metres of them. The mother was directed to arrange for a social worker to explain the contact orders to the children. The court also authorised the mother to change one child's Christian name and the spelling of another child's name without the father's consent, and permitted her to obtain passports and travel internationally with the children without the father's consent. The order for independent representation of the children was discharged, and there were no orders as to costs.