Budd and Horne and Anor

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Scarlett considered an application for parenting orders concerning a child, X, aged four years and five months. The applicant, the donor father, sought orders for time with the child, while the respondents, Ms. Horne and Ms. Watson, sought no contact between the child and the applicant. The central dispute revolved around the best interests of the child, particularly in light of the respondents' request for no contact and the applicant's status as a donor father.

The court was required to determine whether any time should be spent by the applicant with the child, and if so, what form that time should take, considering the child's welfare as the paramount consideration under section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). A further issue was whether the applicant should have parental responsibility, or if equal shared parental responsibility should be ordered between the respondents. The court also needed to consider the appropriateness of appointing a Court Expert to provide a report on matters relating to the child's welfare.

Judge Scarlett adopted a cautious approach, acknowledging the need for the child to potentially identify the applicant. The court ordered that the child live with the respondents and that the respondents have equal shared parental responsibility. Limited, supervised time was ordered for the applicant with the child, to occur on specific Sundays, the child's birthday, and other agreed occasions, with provisions for venue agreement and termination of contact if the child became distressed. Crucially, the court ordered the appointment of a Child and Family Psychiatrist as a Court Expert to inquire into and report on various aspects of the child's welfare, including relationships with parties, the impact of changes in circumstances, and the capacity of the parties to meet the child's needs. The parties were to share equally the costs of the Court Expert's report and attendance.