Chimin and Fiato

The case of Chimin and Fiato concerned parenting orders for a child, B, born in 2013. The dispute involved the father, Mr. Chimin, and the mother, Ms. Fiato, and was heard by Baumann J in the Family Court of Australia. The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the child, the nature and extent of the father's time with the child, and measures to prevent the child's removal from Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were the best interests of the child in relation to residence and contact, and the need for protective orders concerning international travel. Specifically, the court had to decide with whom the child would live, the conditions under which the father would have supervised time with the child, and whether to impose an airport watchlist to prevent the child's removal from the Commonwealth of Australia. The court also considered the role of an Independent Children's Lawyer and the need for counselling for the child.

Baumann J ordered that the child, B, live with the Respondent mother. The court discharged a previous order from the Federal Circuit Court dated 7 August 2017. The father was granted supervised time with the child at a specified contact centre, to commence at the earliest opportunity and preferably on a fortnightly basis for two hours, with additional supervised time on the child's birthday if accommodated by the centre. Both parents were ordered to comply with the centre's intake procedures and share equally the costs of the centre. The Independent Children's Lawyer was given liberty to issue a subpoena to the centre for documents. The parents were also directed to arrange counselling for the child, with costs shared equally, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was to assist in sourcing a practitioner. Leave was granted for the Independent Children's Lawyer to provide a copy of a family report to the counsellor. Crucially, both parents were restrained from removing or attempting to remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Marshal of the Australian Federal Police and other police forces were empowered to take necessary steps to include and retain the child's name on the Airport Watch List until further order or consent. The parties were ordered to exchange minutes of further interim orders sought by a specified date, and the proceedings were adjourned for a case management hearing.