Beston and Westlaw

In *Beston & Westlaw* [2013] FamCA 207, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for interim parenting orders concerning two children, C (born November 1999) and D (born October 2003). The final hearing of the matter had commenced and was adjourned part-heard, with the father having not yet been cross-examined. The dispute centred on whether the father should spend time with the children prior to the final determination of the proceedings, following a period where the children had ceased spending time with him.

The court was required to determine the children's best interests in the context of interim parenting arrangements, specifically whether the children should recommence spending time with their father, including overnight stays. A key issue was how to facilitate the children's understanding and acceptance of any interim orders, particularly given their previous refusal to spend time with their father. The court also considered the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in the context of interim proceedings.

Hogan J applied the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, as mandated by section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). His Honour noted that both parents sought orders for the children to spend time with the father, including overnight and holiday periods, and that the mother expressed confidence in her ability to manage the children's behaviour to ensure they recommenced spending time with their father. The court found it was in the children's best interests to recommence spending time with their father immediately, as the hiatus was not beneficial and the children were entitled to continue and develop their relationships. The court also referenced *Goode and Goode* and *Marvel & Marvel (No 2)* regarding the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, noting its application in interim parenting proceedings unless rebutted or inappropriate.

By consent, the court made orders restraining the mother from discussing proceedings with the children and requiring her to deliver the children to a family consultant, Ms B, for an explanation of the interim orders. Following this explanation, the children were to commence spending time with the father, with detailed provisions for interim parenting arrangements, including overnight stays and holiday periods. The court also made orders for the parents to attend family therapy, with the father to meet the initial costs, and granted leave for specific documents to be provided to the therapist under section 121 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).