BLINKO & BLINKO

Blinko & Blinko involved an appeal against a decision concerning the custody and contact arrangements for a child. The father sought to increase his time and communication with his child, which the mother opposed, citing concerns about the father's history of family violence and potential psychological harm to the child. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues were whether the primary judge had correctly considered the potential risks to the child's psychological well-being and whether the judge had adequately balanced these risks against the child's need to maintain a relationship with the father. The father argued that the primary judge had failed to consider the expert evidence indicating that contact with him would not be harmful and that the child would suffer from the loss of the relationship. The mother contended that the primary judge had properly assessed the risks and that denying further contact was in the child's best interests.

The court found that while the primary judge had considered the father's history of family violence and the mother's concerns, there had been an error in not considering the potential psychological harm to the child if contact with the father was denied. The court also found that the primary judge had not adequately balanced the risks and that the evidence showed that the child would suffer from the loss of the relationship with the father. However, the court dismissed the appeal in all other respects, finding that the primary judge had appropriately considered the overall evidence and that the mother's application for costs was unsuccessful.

The court allowed the appeal in part, imposing an injunction to prevent the mother from denigrating the father or discussing the court proceedings with the child. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the mother's application for costs was rejected. The form of the orders was subject to formal entry in the court’s records.