DICKENS & DICKENS

In *Dickens & Dickens*, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders for two children, aged 15 and 17, who had not spent time with their father for over four and five years respectively. The children had expressed clear and strong views that they did not wish to spend time or speak with their father. The court also addressed an application by the mother for an order under section 102QB(2)(b) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to prohibit the father from instituting further proceedings without leave, given his history of frequently initiating proceedings without reasonable grounds.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether final parenting orders should be made in accordance with the children's expressed wishes, and whether the father should be restrained from commencing further proceedings without judicial leave due to vexatious conduct. The court was required to balance the children's autonomy and well-being, particularly given their ages and expressed views, against any potential parental rights or obligations, and to consider the impact of the father's litigation history on the family law process.

Watts J reasoned that in circumstances involving older children with mature and clearly articulated views, their wishes are a significant factor in determining parenting arrangements. Given the substantial period of no contact, the history of family violence, and the protracted litigation, the court found it appropriate to make final orders reflecting the children's expressed wishes. The court also determined that the father's pattern of instituting proceedings without reasonable grounds constituted vexatious litigation, warranting the imposition of a leave requirement for any future applications.

Consequently, the court made final orders that the children were to live with their mother and that she was to have sole parental responsibility. Furthermore, an order was made pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) prohibiting the father from instituting further proceedings in relation to the children without the leave of the court.