Bartram & Marsden (No 3)

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the court heard an application for interim parenting orders between Mr Bartram and Ms Marsden. The application concerned the children X and Y, born in 2017 and 2019 respectively. The matter was brought before the court due to the Father's non-compliance with previous final parenting orders, specifically his failure to complete a men’s behaviour change program and the improper execution of the children's visitation schedule. The Father, who was self-represented, sought sole parental responsibility and modifications to the children's schooling and daycare arrangements. Conversely, the Mother sought the discharge of existing parenting orders, the prohibition of any visitation by the Father, and the imposition of various restraints against him. The Independent Children’s Lawyer advocated for the discharge of certain final orders, supervised contact only, and restraints against the Father.

The primary legal issues before the court were the reconsideration of existing parenting orders due to non-compliance and the assessment of risk to the children's safety and well-being. The court had to determine whether to discharge the existing orders, impose new supervised contact conditions, and establish restraints to protect the children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) was also relevant, particularly in ensuring the children's safety and best interests. The court had to weigh the safety concerns raised by the Mother against the Father's rights and the children's need for a relationship with both parents.

The court, Behrens J, decided to discharge certain final parenting orders and impose new conditions to safeguard the children. The court found that the Father's non-compliance with previous orders and the safety concerns raised warranted these changes. The children were to spend supervised time with the Father, with GG Contact Service or an alternative agreed upon by the parties facilitating this contact. The Father was restrained from removing the children from their school or daycare, attending their educational facilities, or requesting others to do so. The court also granted an order for personal protection of the children and imposed restraints against publishing information about these proceedings on social media or other public platforms. The court's decision was based on the previous findings of risk and safety, which it adopted, and the necessity to protect the children's well-being.

The final orders included the discharge of several previous orders, the implementation of supervised contact conditions for the Father, and restraints against him to protect the children. The children were to spend at least two hours every fortnight with the Father under supervision, with the Mother facilitating the contact. The Father was also restrained from certain actions regarding the children's schooling and daycare. The court further restrained both parties from publishing information about these proceedings on any public platform.