Galaska & Galaska

In the matter of *Galaska & Galaska*, Tonkin J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application to re-open an interim parenting dispute. The proceedings involved Mr Galaska as the applicant and Ms Galaska as the respondent, concerning parenting arrangements for their two children. The court was tasked with determining whether to grant the application to re-open the interim parenting orders and, if so, what revised orders were in the children's best interests.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting orders, considering the significant conflict between the parents and the detrimental impact this had on the children. Specifically, the court had to assess whether to vary existing consent orders regarding the children's time with their father, and to implement measures to protect the children from parental conflict and inappropriate discussions about the proceedings. Additionally, the court addressed the authority of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the financial aspects of the proceedings, including costs and disclosure obligations.

Tonkin J refused the application to re-open the interim parenting dispute, finding that the existing consent orders, with a minor variation to the father's time with the children, were in their best interests. The reasoning emphasised the children's vulnerability and exposure to a highly acrimonious environment, necessitating protection from parental conflict. The court applied the paramountcy principle of the children's best interests, noting the detrimental impact of the parents' behaviour on the children's emotional well-being. Consequently, the court varied the father's weekend time to alternate Saturdays and Sundays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and confirmed time on Father's Day. Strict injunctions were imposed prohibiting discussion of parenting arrangements or proceedings with the children, and prohibiting the recording or filming of the children. The court also discharged mediation orders due to the applicant's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations and made orders regarding the payment of counsellor's costs and specific invoices. The proceedings were listed for trial on 15 November 2021.