Fink & Mallander

In the matter of *Fink & Mallander*, McNab J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application concerning the parenting arrangements for two children, X (born 2011) and Y (born 2013). The dispute arose when the Mother, who had previously resided with the children in Town B, relocated with them to Town C, approximately five hours away, for work purposes. The Father sought interim orders, including a recovery order for the children and an injunction restraining the Mother from relocating them from Town B. The Mother, in turn, sought dismissal of the Father's application and orders for the children to live with her in Town C, with parenting time for the Father to be determined later.

The central legal issues before the Court were the appropriate interim parenting arrangements for the children, particularly in light of the Mother's relocation and the serious allegations of family violence made by the Mother against the Father. The Court was required to balance the principle that children benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents against the paramount consideration of protecting children from risk of family violence or harm, as guided by the objects and principles of Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The Court also considered the impact of the parties' high level of conflict and the significant needs of the children.

McNab J applied the principles enshrined in section 60B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which prioritises ensuring children have the benefit of both parents' meaningful involvement in their lives while protecting them from harm. The Court noted the significant allegations of family violence made by the Mother, which the Father largely denied, and acknowledged the difficulty in making final determinations on interim applications. Given the high level of conflict, the serious allegations, and the children's needs, the Court determined that the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer was appropriate to assist in determining the children's best interests.

The Court made orders for the children's return to the Town B area by a specified date, with the children to continue living with the Mother upon their return. In the event the Mother did not comply, the children were to live with the Father. A recovery order was issued, but its operation was stayed until a later date. The orders also provided for the children's re-enrolment at their previous school, detailed specific time arrangements for the Father to spend with the children, and included provisions for communication, information sharing, and injunctions restraining denigration and discussion of court proceedings in the children's presence. Further, the Court ordered the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer and directed the parties to attend upon a Family Consultant for the preparation of a Family Report, with a final hearing scheduled for a later date.