Cryall and Peterman

Stevenson J presided over proceedings concerning the children D, M, and T, born in 1995, 1998, and 2001 respectively. The dispute centred on the living arrangements and parental responsibilities for these children, with the court ultimately discharging all existing orders and making new provisions regarding their care and contact.

The court was required to determine the primary residence of the children, the allocation of decision-making authority for major long-term issues, and the nature and extent of the mother's time with the children. Crucially, the court had to consider the children's welfare in light of the parents' respective capacities, the risks associated with the mother's behaviour, and the practicalities of supervision for contact. The court also had to assess the impact of any changes to the children's circumstances and the practical difficulties and expenses involved in facilitating contact.

Stevenson J reasoned that while the children expressed a wish to live with their mother, there was a significant risk they would be exposed to her "reactive behaviour, consistent negativity toward their father and failure to set proper limits." The judge noted the father's efforts to facilitate the children's relationship with the mother, including bearing the costs of supervision. Conversely, the mother had created difficulties regarding supervisors and engaged in disputes. The court considered the evidence of Dr. W, who expressed concerns about supervision by the mother's friends and family due to their potential to share her values and difficulty in preventing her problematic behaviour, such as drinking. Dr. W also outlined risks to the children from unsupervised time, including emotional abuse and "brainwashing" about their father.

The court ordered that the father have sole responsibility for major long-term decisions, though he must consult with the mother. The children are to live with the father, with supervised time with the mother on alternate Fridays, alternate weekends, and during half of the school holidays. Supervision arrangements were detailed, initially by an employee of Dial-An-Angel and subsequently by agreed persons or specified family and friends, provided they signed an undertaking. The father is to bear the cost of supervision. The mother is restrained from contact outside these orders and from consuming alcohol or illicit drugs when the children are in her care. The orders also include provisions for communication between the children and the mother, restraints on denigrating each other, and information sharing by the father regarding significant matters concerning the children. The court also continued the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer for 12 months and adjourned the father's application for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home. A fact sheet detailing obligations and consequences of contravention was attached to the orders.