Bijou and Alabo

The Family Court of Australia considered parenting arrangements for the child B, born in March 2001, between the applicant father, Mr Bijou, and the respondent mother, Ms Alabo. The dispute centred on two primary issues: the child's secondary schooling and the nature and extent of the father's time with the child. A further issue was whether any orders made should be interim or final.

The court was required to determine which parent should have sole parental responsibility for decisions regarding the child's schooling, given the parents' inability to agree on a secondary school. Additionally, the court had to decide the appropriate time the child should spend with her father, considering allegations of inappropriate behaviour and boundary issues raised by the mother. Finally, the court needed to assess whether the father's request for interim orders with a review was appropriate, or if final orders were warranted based on the evidence presented.

Rees J found the mother's proposal for schooling to be well-considered and to take into account the child's wishes, while the father's proposal was deemed unworkable. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility for decisions concerning the child's schooling. Regarding the father's time with the child, the court noted concerns about the father's difficulties in setting age-appropriate emotional and physical boundaries, and the child's risk of emotional harm due to the father's pressure and discussion of court proceedings with her. The court found the father's evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly concerning his past behaviour with the child.

The court made final orders for the child to reside with the mother, with the mother having sole parental responsibility for schooling decisions. The father's time with the child was to be gradually increased over 12 months, commencing with four hours per week and eventually extending to ten hours per day. Specific orders were made restraining the father from discussing proceedings with the child and from certain bathing and toileting practices. The court also ordered supervised telephone contact initiated by the father. The Independent Children's Lawyer was requested to explain the orders to the child.