Beazley and Andreopolis

In *Beazley & Andreopolis* [2014] FamCA 84, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother, Ms Beazley, seeking to discharge existing orders for contact between her two children, C and T, and their father, Mr Andreopolis. The mother also sought an order restraining the father from approaching the children or their schools without her written consent or a court order. The father, though aware of the proceedings, did not participate and indicated he would not file any response, allowing the matter to proceed on an undefended basis.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the last consent orders were made in November 2010, and if so, what orders were in the best interests of the children, C (born 1998) and T (born 2001). The court was required to consider the children's welfare, including their need to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents, balanced against the paramount consideration of protecting them from physical and emotional abuse, as well as giving substantial weight to the children's views.

Justice Watts found that a significant change in circumstances had occurred, primarily due to new allegations of physical and emotional abuse made by the children against their father, corroborated by their statements to their mother and a child psychologist. The court gave greater weight to the need for protection from abuse and the children's expressed fears and negative views regarding contact with their father, noting their ages and maturity. The court accepted the children's allegations as truthful, characterising them as evidence of serious family violence. Given the history of litigation and the children's current expressed wishes and fears, the court concluded that it was not in their best interests to continue face-to-face contact.

Consequently, the court discharged the previous orders relating to telephone and face-to-face contact between the children and their father. The court ordered that the respondent father be restrained from approaching either of the children, including their schools, without the written consent of the applicant mother or a further order of the court.