Chase and Moseley

This matter concerned interim parenting orders made by Judge Scarlett in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved allegations of drug abuse and the need to protect the child, [X], from harm, with the court considering whether the child's time with either parent should be supervised and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the child. The court also addressed an application under section 121 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to provide copies of affidavits to the police, which was refused.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, [X], in light of the allegations and the need to protect the child from harm. Specifically, the court had to consider the extent to which the child should have a meaningful relationship with both parents, whether the mother should only spend time with the child at a contact centre, and the appropriate interim arrangements for the child's living arrangements and time with each parent. The court also needed to decide on the necessity and scope of drug testing for both parents and the appointment of a court expert to report on matters concerning the child's best interests.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child, as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975*. The court ordered equal shared parental responsibility but stipulated that the child would live with the father. The mother was granted specific time with the child, from Wednesday after pre-school until Friday morning pre-school. To address concerns regarding drug use, both parents were ordered to undertake hair follicle drug testing and supervised urinalysis upon request by the Independent Children's Lawyer, with strict protocols for collection and reporting. The court also imposed injunctions restraining both parents from consuming illicit drugs or alcohol within twelve hours of or during the child's care, and specifically restrained the mother from allowing the child contact with a Mr W. Furthermore, the court appointed a psychologist as a court expert to report on the child's best interests, including the child's relationships with parents and other family members, and ordered a child-inclusive dispute resolution conference.