Ellis & Cicero (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Kent J, heard a matter between Mr Ellis (the Applicant Father) and Ms Cicero (the Respondent Mother). The dispute concerned interim parenting orders for the parties' two children, N and C, pending the resumption of a part-heard trial. While the parties had reached agreement on many aspects of the interim arrangements, a key point of contention remained the duration of time the daughter, N, should spend in the Father's care.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim orders for contact between the children and their parents, specifically addressing the length of the Father's time with N. The court also needed to consider the need for expert evidence regarding the children's adjustment to the proposed contact arrangements and the necessity of a s 65L order for the explanation of the interim orders to the children.

Kent J reasoned that while the Mother's counsel argued for a limited contact period for N with the Father due to concerns about N's reaction and the Father's behaviour, there was existing expert evidence from a Family Report that contemplated longer contact periods. The court found that the Father's application, supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer, for an initial period of shorter contact followed by an extension to a full day was appropriate. The court made various orders regarding communication, information sharing, parental conduct, and the children's living arrangements, including the use of a contact centre and telephone contact.

The court ordered that N live with the Mother and C live with the Father. Interim contact orders were made for N to spend time with the Father, commencing with shorter periods and then extending to full days, and for C to spend time with the Mother on alternate weekends. A s 65L order was made for a Family Consultant to explain the interim orders to the children. The trial was adjourned to 19 October 2012, with directions for further affidavit material and the preparation of an updated Family Report. The court also noted the unlikelihood of the contact centre being available before the trial resumed.