Covington & Covington

In the matter of *Covington & Covington*, McEvoy J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute arising from consent orders made in final parenting proceedings. The mother sought to withdraw her consent to the orders, alleging duress, coercion, and pressure from her legal representatives. She also sought leave to be represented by a non-legal practitioner. The father applied to vary the consent orders to exclude the mother from the child's vaccination process due to her opposition to vaccination, which he contended would be distressing for the child.

The court was required to determine whether the mother could withdraw her consent to the orders after they had been pronounced in court, and if not, whether she could be granted leave to be represented by a non-legal practitioner. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the consent orders should be varied to exclude the mother from the vaccination process, and if so, on what basis.

McEvoy J found that pursuant to rule 17.01(1)(a) of the *Family Law Rules 2004*, the consent orders were made and in effect when pronounced in court, not when published. Consequently, the mother could not unilaterally withdraw her consent without an application to set aside the orders. The court also found no exceptional circumstances to permit representation by a non-legal practitioner, though leave was granted for such a person to assist as a McKenzie Friend. Regarding the father's application, the court determined that the evidence indicated allowing the mother to be involved in the vaccination process would be distressing for the child and not in her best interests.

Accordingly, the court varied the final consent orders. The father was permitted to attend paediatric appointments for the child's vaccination and was primarily responsible for taking the child to such appointments. The mother was restrained from attending any paediatric or general practitioner appointments made for the purpose of immunising or vaccinating the child, unless otherwise agreed in writing. The father was also ordered to ensure his conduct during appointments was calm and co-operative, and that the child was not exposed to conflict or distress.