Bendon and Bendon

In the matter of *Bendon and Bendon*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered orders relating to parental responsibility and communication between a wife and her children. The dispute concerned the terms under which the wife could communicate with the children, D, E, and F, following previous orders made on 2 December 2015.

The court was required to determine the extent of the husband's sole parental responsibility for the children and to establish a framework for the wife's communication with them. This involved considering the nature and supervision of electronic communication, the wife's responsibility for associated costs, and the conditions under which such communication could be terminated or parcels from the wife could be handled. The court also addressed the husband's cooperation with contact services and the dissemination of the court's orders and reasons to relevant parties, including schools and health professionals.

Cronin J reasoned that the existing orders needed to be discharged and replaced with new provisions to address the ongoing issues. The court ordered that the husband have sole parental responsibility for the children. Communication between the wife and the children was to be conducted via electronic means, strictly supervised by staff from a designated Child Contact Service in Western Australia. The supervisor retained discretion to vary the timetable and duration of communication, and to terminate it if the wife's discussions were deemed destabilising to the children's relationship with the husband. The wife was to bear the costs of supervision, and parcels sent by her were to be vetted by the contact service. The court also stipulated specific dates for supervised electronic communication and outlined the husband's obligation to cooperate with the contact service, provided the nominated times were reasonably close to the established timetable.

The court ordered the discharge of paragraphs 2 and 4 of the previous orders and granted the husband sole parental responsibility for the children. The wife's communication with the children was to be supervised electronically, with specific conditions and a timetable outlined. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged, except for the obligation to provide copies of the orders and reasons to specified parties. The husband was permitted to provide these orders and reasons to various authorities and professionals. The court also included a fact sheet detailing obligations and consequences of contravention, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).