Denison & Ravenscroft

This matter came before McNab J concerning a dispute between Ms Denison (the Applicant/Wife) and Mr Ravenscroft (the Respondent/Husband) regarding their two children, Y (born 2010) and X (born 2012). The proceedings involved an urgent oral application by the Wife to suspend existing orders for unsupervised time between the Father and the children. The case had a long history, with a prominent feature being the Father's mental health, which was a subject of evidence from both parties.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the interim arrangements for the children's time with the Father, given the Wife's concerns about his mental health and a specific allegation of inappropriate supervision at a gym. The Court was required to consider the risk to the children in the context of interim proceedings, where definitive factual findings are difficult to make due to the limited nature of the evidence and submissions. The Court was also tasked with making orders for the collection of further evidence, including psychiatric and paediatric assessments, and updated family reports, to inform the final hearing.

McNab J applied principles relevant to interim proceedings, drawing on authorities such as *Briggs & Gerber* and *Meese & Meese*. The Court acknowledged the need for circumspection in making factual findings at the interim stage, as the material is not fully tested. However, the Court also recognised its obligation to consider risk, even when unable to make definitive findings about the underlying facts, referencing the seminal High Court case of *M & M*. The Court's reasoning focused on balancing the need for the children to maintain a relationship with their Father against the potential risks to their welfare, necessitating a cautious approach and the gathering of further expert evidence.

The Court made detailed orders by consent regarding property settlement payments, the Independent Children's Lawyer's access to documents, and the Father's attendance for a psychiatric assessment. Further orders were made for the children X and Y to attend paediatric and cognitive assessments, respectively. The parties were directed to engage in mediation, and existing orders for unsupervised time were suspended. The Court ordered an updated Family Report and set dates for a mention and a final hearing. The Father was ordered to pay for supervised contact with the children and for his own psychiatric assessment and report.