Bendon and Bendon (No 3)

This case concerned parenting orders for three children, D, E, and F, born in 2005, 2007, and 2009 respectively. The dispute involved the father and the mother, and the decision was made by Johns J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to their future care arrangements, specifically addressing the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, the potential risks to the children's physical and emotional well-being in the care of either parent, and the extent to which the mother's time with the children should be supervised. The court also considered the geographical distance between the parties and the mother's stated intentions regarding her involvement with the children.

Johns J applied the considerations outlined in sections 60CC(2) and (3) of the relevant legislation. The court considered the primary consideration of the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, noting that such a relationship is generally considered important, significant, and valuable to the child. However, the court also acknowledged that in some circumstances, fostering a relationship with one parent might not be in the child's best interests if it compromises their well-being. The court considered the allegations made by both parents regarding the risks posed by the other parent's care and the impact on the children's welfare. The Independent Children's Lawyer's position, which highlighted the need for safeguards to protect the children's physical and psychological health during contact with the mother, was also taken into account.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, with specific requirements for him to inform and consider the mother's written responses before making decisions. The children were ordered to live with the father. The mother's time with the children was to be supervised, either at a nominated contact centre or by an agreed third party, and was limited to six occasions per calendar year. The mother was also permitted to communicate with the children via Skype or telephone on specific days and times, with provisions for the father to monitor and potentially terminate the communication if it undermined the children's relationship with the paternal family or destabilised care arrangements. The court also made orders regarding communication on special days, information sharing between parents, and prohibitions against denigrating the other parent or discussing proceedings in the children's presence. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all extant applications were dismissed.