Frederick and Frederick (No 2)

This matter concerned parenting orders for two children, T and C, born in 1999 and 2002 respectively. The proceedings were before Tree J in the Family Court of Australia. The father had disengaged from the proceedings, and the orders were made by consent between the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in circumstances where the father had been charged with indecent dealing, although these charges did not proceed. The mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer did not contend that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm. However, the court also considered that the mother's former partner posed a risk to the children, with existing orders prohibiting the mother from exposing them to him. The father alleged alienation, but the court found no risk of emotional harm from the mother in this regard. The court noted that the father's communication with the children was inappropriate and his interactions with them were poor, but concluded there was no risk of harm. The wishes of the mature children, particularly the child over 17, were given substantial weight, with the Family Report writer suggesting they should be able to make their own decisions about future contact. The court also noted the father's prior conviction for assault of one of the children, which meant the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply.

The court reasoned that due to the parents' inability to communicate and discharge responsibilities, equal shared parental responsibility was not in the children's best interests. The father's conviction for assault, coupled with the communication breakdown and the children's maturity and wishes, led the court to conclude that the mother should have sole parental responsibility. However, the court crafted detailed provisions to ensure the father was informed of major long-term decisions and had an opportunity to express his views, requiring the mother to give these views genuine consideration. The children were to spend time with and communicate with the father as they saw fit, with provisions for a mobile telephone and facilitation of contact. Communication between the parents was restricted to child-related matters via text or email, with specific rules regarding changeovers and respectful communication about each other. The mother was also ordered not to expose the children to Mr J.

The court vacated all previous parenting orders, except for child support orders. T and C were to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility, subject to specific consultation requirements with the father regarding major long-term decisions. The children were to spend time with and communicate with the father as they saw fit, with provisions to facilitate this. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed.