Blinac and Manolo

In the matter of Blinac and Manolo, heard by Justice Rose, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child born in September 2002. The court was required to determine the future parenting arrangements for the child, including issues of parental responsibility, living arrangements, and the nature and supervision of contact between the child and the mother. The court also considered orders relating to the parents' ongoing engagement with the Director-General of the NSW Department of Community Services, the parents' conduct towards each other and the child, and specific therapeutic and reporting requirements for the father.

Justice Rose reasoned that the existing parenting orders were no longer appropriate and made new orders reflecting a significant shift in parental responsibility. The court applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, which led to the father being granted sole parental responsibility and the child living with him. Contact between the mother and child was to be supervised by the Director-General for a period of two years, with specific limitations on the duration and frequency of contact. The court also imposed stringent conditions on both parents regarding communication, conduct, and cooperation with the Department of Community Services, including requirements for the father to continue psychiatric treatment and provide access to his treating psychiatrist. Furthermore, the mother was restrained from bringing the child into the company of a specific individual, Mr A.

The court ordered the discharge of all current parenting orders and made new orders, including that the father have sole parental responsibility and the child live with him. Contact between the mother and child was to occur monthly for up to six hours, supervised by the Director-General for two years. The mother was permitted to send letters, cards, or presents, provided they were suitable and facilitated by the father. Both parents were ordered to continue seeking guidance from and following recommendations of the Director-General. The mother was restrained from bringing the child into the company of Mr A. Liberty was granted to the mother to apply to vary or set aside the orders on seven days' notice.