C & M

This matter concerned an appeal by the father against orders made by Bell J on 12 April 2005, specifically concerning contact arrangements for the parties' two children, R and C. While most property settlement issues had been resolved by consent, the appeal focused on whether a specific period of contact, where the father saw the children on alternate Fridays from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm, should continue beyond December 2006. The father's primary contention was that the trial judge failed to provide adequate or any reasons for ordering the cessation of this contact period once the children commenced school.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was whether the trial judge had erred by failing to give adequate reasons for the decision to limit the father's contact with the children to a specific date. The court was required to consider the established legal principles regarding the necessity for trial judges to provide sufficient reasons for their discretionary decisions, particularly in matters concerning children and property settlement under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to determine whether to re-exercise the discretion concerning the contact arrangements.

The Full Court, comprising Holden, May, and Boland JJ, found that the trial judge had indeed failed to provide adequate reasons for the cessation of the contact period. Citing established authority, including *Merriman and Merriman* (1993) FLC 92-422, the court emphasised that appellate courts must be able to discern the reasoning process of the trial judge to ensure justice has been done and to identify potential errors. In re-exercising the discretion, the court considered the father's affidavit evidence, which indicated a good relationship with the children, and found that the mother's reasons for cessation were not demonstrably in the children's best interests.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in relation to the specific contact order. The court varied the order to permit the father's contact, as described, to continue beyond December 2006. Consent orders were also made regarding property settlement matters, and other aspects of the children's issues appeal were dismissed. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal.