DREWRY & FIRE

The case involved a dispute between a mother and father concerning parenting orders for their three children. The court was asked to determine the best interests of the children, specifically with whom they should live and spend time. The mother conceded that it was in the children's best interests to live with the father and spend no time with her.

The central legal issue before Johns J was to determine the parenting arrangements that would serve the best interests of the children, as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering the likely effect of any changes in the children's circumstances, including separation from their parents, and the practical difficulties and expense of a child spending time with a parent, and whether such difficulties would substantially affect the child's right to maintain regular contact with both parents. The court also had to assess the mother's capacity to manage her behaviour and protect the children from conflict, even in a supervised setting.

Johns J reasoned that the children had been living with the father since May 2013, who had met all their physical needs with minimal assistance from the mother. The mother had also failed to meet her child support obligations. Crucially, the court found that even supervised contact with the mother would expose the children to psychological harm and damage their relationship with the father, as the mother's behaviour undermined the father's role and could not be contained or shielded from the conflict between the parents. The family consultant agreed that while initial sadness might result from no contact, it would ultimately be a better outcome for the children than limited, disruptive supervised visits, provided communication lines remained open.

Consequently, the court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the children live with him. The children were to spend no time with the mother. The mother was permitted to communicate with the children once a month via email, subject to the father's vetting. The court also made extensive orders restraining the mother from removing the children from the father's care, contacting their school, or relocating them within Australia, and took steps to prevent their removal from the Commonwealth.