Eastley and Eastley (No. 2)

In *Eastley and Eastley (No. 2)*, Gill J of the Family Court of Australia considered interim arrangements for two children, X and Y, pending the completion of a report by a single expert. The dispute centred on the extent to which the father should have contact with the children, given allegations of sexual abuse and family violence made by the mother, which the father largely denied. The children had not spent time with the father since shortly after the parties' separation.

The court was required to determine whether to grant supervised time between the father and the children, and if so, on what terms. This involved assessing the risks of harm to the children, particularly concerning sexual assault or trauma associated with exposure to the father, against the potential benefits of maintaining a relationship with him. The court also had to consider the differing circumstances and potential risks to each child, acknowledging the incomplete and untested nature of the evidence at this interim stage.

Gill J applied the principles governing interim proceedings in family law, emphasising that the court must weigh probabilities and the likely impact on children when evidence is contested. The paramount consideration was the best interests of each child, as mandated by section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and assessed by reference to relevant factors under section 60CC. The court acknowledged that while supervised time might mitigate some risks, it could still cause disturbance. Ultimately, the court found that for child X, the risk of traumatisation from contact with the father outweighed the potential benefits, even with supervision. However, for child Y, the risks were mitigated by supervised time, and the potential benefits of a meaningful relationship were deemed to outweigh the risks.

The court ordered that the children live with the mother. Additionally, child Y was to spend supervised time with the father at a contact centre, at the father's expense, on specified days and times. The parties were granted liberty to agree in writing to vary these arrangements.