Fontaine & Fontaine

In *Fontaine & Fontaine*, Kari J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning two children aged seven and eight years. The dispute involved allegations of family violence between the father and the second respondent, who is the mother of the children. The father had been charged with serious offences, and an intervention order had been made protecting the mother and the children. Both the mother and the second respondent asserted that the father posed a risk to their child.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the father should have supervised time with the children, and the implications of the father’s assertion of his right to remain silent regarding the alleged family violence incident that led to the charges and the intervention order. The father did not seek a certificate under s 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) in relation to his silence.

Kari J determined that the parties had mutually agreed that the father should spend supervised time with the children. The court noted the father's assertion of his right to remain silent concerning the allegations of family violence and the resulting intervention order. The judge applied principles of family law concerning the paramountcy of the child’s welfare and best interests, considering the allegations of family violence and the existing intervention order. The court acknowledged the father's right to remain silent but also considered the impact of this silence on the assessment of risk to the children.

The court made interim orders for supervised time between the father and the children.