DEMYAN & BEATTIE

In the Family Court of Australia, Cleary J considered an application by the father to re-open parenting proceedings concerning the parties' only child. This followed two previous final hearings, the most recent in November 2012, which had made orders for supervised time between the child and father on two occasions annually, following the father's physical assault of the mother. The father's application to re-open the proceedings was granted in June 2014.

The court was required to determine whether the existing contact orders were promoting the child's best interests, particularly in light of the child's observed stress stemming from the mother's distress regarding the father and the child's potential independent memory of the assault. Additionally, the court considered an application by the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer to restrain the father from instituting further proceedings.

Cleary J reasoned that the father's lack of contrition for the assault, his willingness to be deceptive, and his significant child support arrears of approximately $30,000, when considered alongside the child's stress, indicated that the current arrangements were not in the child's best interests. Consequently, the court discharged the relevant contact orders made in November 2012, while retaining provisions for gifts, letters, and cards. The court declined to make a restraining order against the father, finding no evidence of an extraneous purpose for his applications, but cautioned him to carefully consider any future applications given the finding that no time should be spent between him and the child unless otherwise agreed in writing.

The father's amended application and the mother's amended response were dismissed. The court varied the orders of 7 November 2012 by discharging specific orders relating to contact, and ordered that, unless otherwise agreed in writing, the child shall spend no time with the father.