Cattini and Hunt

In *Cattini & Hunt* [2013] FamCA 30, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for interim parenting orders concerning three children. The applicant father, Mr Cattini, and the respondent mother, Ms Hunt, presented conflicting accounts of the children's experiences during recent time spent with the father. An Independent Children’s Lawyer also participated in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting arrangements for the children, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, living arrangements, and the father's time with the children. The court also had to consider the father's alleged alcohol consumption and the parents' capacity for communication and co-operation, particularly in light of expert evidence from a family consultant that recommended the children be placed with the father.

Justice Cronin rejected proposals for supervised contact or immediate removal of the children, finding that such measures would not adequately test the criticisms raised by the mother or facilitate the development of a meaningful relationship between the father and children. The court noted significant concerns regarding the father's credit and his capacity to meet the children's needs, particularly in relation to his alcohol use and the lack of transparency in his evidence. Despite these concerns, the court found that a period of continued, albeit limited, time with the father was in the children's best interests, acknowledging the family consultant's view on the importance of the father-child relationship. The court also imposed an injunction restraining the father from consuming alcohol while the children are in his care.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the children live with her until further order. The father was granted specific, limited time with the children on alternate weekends and for four days during school holidays. The court also made orders restraining the mother from attending school at handover times and requiring the father to return the children if he could not attend. The court noted the parents' inability to communicate and their lack of co-operation, which precluded any consideration of equal shared parental responsibility at that stage.