ENGLISH & EKLUND

The Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting orders concerning a child born in 2012, with the applicant father, Mr English, and the respondent mother, Ms Eklund. The primary dispute centred on the extent of time the child would spend with the father and whether an order for parental responsibility should be made. While both parties agreed the child should continue living with the mother, the mother alleged past sexual abuse by the father and ongoing risks to the child's physical and psychological wellbeing due to alleged dietary neglect. The father denied posing any risk. An Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) supported the mother's position but proposed supervised contact if the court deemed it in the child's best interests.

The court was required to determine whether the child should spend any time with the father pending the release of an expert report and a further interim hearing, and whether an interim order for parental responsibility should be made. Additionally, the court made orders restraining both parties from continuing treatment with the child's paediatrician, with short reasons to be provided in the judgment. The central legal issue revolved around balancing the child's best interests, including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, against the mother's serious allegations of abuse and neglect.

In its reasoning, the court weighed the probabilities and found it unlikely that a finding of sexual abuse by the father would be made at a final hearing. It considered that the child benefits from a meaningful relationship with both parents and that any identified risks posed by the father could be adequately mitigated through supervised contact. Consequently, the court made orders largely as proposed by the father regarding the child's time with him and communication, and as proposed by the ICL concerning other matters, including supervised contact by a private agency. The court also made orders restraining the mother from causing the child to be examined or interviewed regarding alleged sexual abuse unless consented to by the father or directed by authorities, and restrained her from interfering with the father's phone calls with the child.

The court ordered that the child live with her mother and spend supervised time with her father on alternate Sundays and on Father's Day if it fell on a weekend the child was not scheduled to see him. The father was to pay for the supervision costs and facilitate the commencement of contact as soon as practicable. Changeovers were to occur at an agreed location, and the mother was restrained from remaining at the contact venue. The father was also granted specific communication rights with the child via phone and authorised to receive school information, with certain restrictions on his attendance at school events. The court also made orders regarding the notification of medical emergencies and limited gift-giving.