Eccles and Garvey

The case of *Eccles & Garvey* [2012] FamCA 905 involved proceedings in the Family Court of Australia concerning the parenting arrangements for two children, C (born January 2004) and B (born January 2005). The primary dispute was between the mother, Ms Eccles, and the father, Mr Garvey, who both sought interim parenting orders. The mother alleged that the children were at risk of sexual abuse by the father and sought to suspend his contact. The father contended that the children were at risk of psychological harm due to the mother's unfounded allegations of sexual abuse.

The court was required to determine interim parenting orders pending a final hearing, which had been expedited. Key legal issues included assessing the risk of harm to the children, considering allegations of sexual abuse and psychological harm, and determining appropriate interim living and contact arrangements. The court also had to consider the appointment of a Single Expert Witness and an Independent Children's Lawyer.

Justice Fowler made a number of orders by consent and pending further order. These included orders for the children to live with the father for specified periods during school terms and holidays, with the children living with the mother at other times. The mother was restrained from causing the children to attend counselling or therapy without the father's consent or a court order, except in emergencies. Both parents were restrained from discussing the proceedings or questioning the children about sexual assault allegations.

By consent, Dr E, a Children and Family Psychiatrist, was appointed as a Single Expert Witness to report on matters relating to the children's welfare, including risks of harm, psychological impact of past therapy, the children's views, their relationships, parental capacity, and family violence. The parties were to share the costs of this report. An Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed for the children, with Legal Aid NSW requested to arrange representation. The hearing of the proceedings was expedited, with a final hearing scheduled for January and February 2013. The court reserved its decision on other competing applications.