Bronson and Winghem and Anor

In the matter of *Bronson and Winghem and Anor*, Barry J of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning the parenting of a child, Q, born in March 2004. The proceedings involved the child's mother, the first respondent Stepmother, and the second respondent Father, who was incarcerated. The dispute centred on the arrangements for the child's living situation, time spent with each parent, and parental responsibility.

The court was required to determine the interim living arrangements for the child, the extent of time the child would spend with the Stepmother, and the conditions under which such time would occur. Further, the court needed to address the preparation of reports to assist in determining the child's best interests, including a report from the Director-General of the Department of Communities (Child Safety) and an updated Family Report from a Family Consultant. The court also had to consider the implications of the Father's imprisonment on parenting arrangements and communication with the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Barry J ordered that the matter be designated "Magellan" and directed the preparation of a Section 69ZW report by the Director-General and an updated Family Report by Mr P, a Family Consultant. Mr P was granted leave to review Dr M's report and subpoenaed material, and the parties were ordered to facilitate the child's attendance at appointments for the Family Report. Crucially, the court ordered that prior to the finalisation of the Family Report, the child's time with the Mother be supervised by Mr P on at least two occasions, with Mr P providing assistance as reasonably requested. The child was ordered to live with the Mother, who was granted parental responsibility for daily care, welfare, and development. The Stepmother was granted specific time with the child on alternate weekends, with collection and return to school, provided the Father was not present. The Father was ordered to notify the Independent Children’s Lawyer in writing of his release from prison at least fourteen days prior.

The court discharged previous orders made on 12 February 2007 and 26 September 2007. Parties were granted liberty to apply on forty-eight hours' notice, and the proceedings were adjourned to the Judicial Duty List on 12 October 2009. The court also ordered that particulars of the obligations created by these orders, the consequences of contravention, and details of assistance available to parties be set out in a separate annexed document.