DOTSON & GOFF

This matter concerned competing interim parenting applications before Judge Altobelli. The dispute centred on the living arrangements and time spent between the child, X, and her parents. The court was asked to determine the interim orders for X’s care, considering the submissions of the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL).

The primary legal issues before the court were: the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, including exposure to abuse, neglect, or family violence; the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents; the child’s views; the nature of the child’s relationships with each parent and other significant persons; the extent to which each parent had participated in major long-term decisions and spent time with the child; the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances; the practical difficulties and expense of spending time with each parent; and the capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, including emotional and intellectual needs. The court also considered the maturity and background of the child and parents, any relevant cultural considerations, the parents’ attitudes towards parenthood, and any family violence involving the child or family members.

Judge Altobelli largely adopted the submissions and proposed orders of the ICL, finding that the need to protect X from potential significant psychological harm outweighed the benefit of an immediate meaningful relationship with both parents. This decision was informed by concerns raised in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case outline, which incorporated discussions from a Family Consultant’s Memorandum and a Family Report. These reports highlighted the mother’s emotional distress and potential inability to protect X from her own feelings about the father, as evidenced by X’s concerning behaviour, including running away and threats of self-harm. The court noted that while allegations of family violence were made by both parents, no findings could be made at this interim stage. The court also considered X’s apparent enjoyment of her relationships with both parents and her good relationships with her grandparents, but ultimately prioritised X’s safety.

The court ordered that X live with the Father. The Mother was granted supervised time with X, with specific arrangements for Saturdays and Tuesdays, and on Christmas Day 2019, all to be supervised by agreed individuals or a parenting centre. The costs of supervision for Saturday visits were to be shared equally. The Mother was also ordered to continue attending psychologist Ms D, and the ICL was granted leave to share relevant reports and information with therapists involved in X’s or the Mother’s care. Both parents were authorised to receive information from medical practitioners and schools regarding X, at their own cost. The court also made orders regarding communication between parents, prohibiting discussion of court proceedings with X, and requiring the use of "Our Family Wizard" for all communications. The matter was adjourned for review in six months, with a final hearing scheduled for April 2020.