GAMBLE & BECKS

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Gamble applied for orders concerning the parenting of her two children, B and C, with the respondent, Mr Becks. This matter had been before the court on multiple occasions, including a previous consent order made on 6 November 2009, which provided for shared parenting arrangements. However, this order had not been complied with, leading to significant difficulties and further litigation.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, considering their welfare and best interests. Key issues included whether to continue a shared parenting order, given the parties' inability to communicate and co-operate, and the expressed wishes and preferences of the children. The court also had to consider the impact of the parents' relationship and past allegations on the children's well-being.

Bell J found that shared parenting was not working and would not work in this case, citing the parties' fundamental inability to communicate and prioritise the children's welfare over their own disputes. The court noted that the elder child, B, adamantly preferred to live with her father, while the younger child, C, preferred to live with her mother but was less entrenched in her preference. Despite the mother's initial application for supervised contact, she later sought shared parenting, which the court found inconsistent with her own evidence that it was not working. The court was persuaded by expert evidence that splitting the children would not be in their best interests and that stability was best achieved by the children residing with one parent. The court also considered the children's need to be protected from physical and psychological harm, referencing a recent physical altercation between B and her mother.

The court ordered that all previous orders be discharged. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, with the requirement to consult the mother on long-term decisions regarding their health and education. The children were ordered to live with the father, with specific provisions for spending time with the mother, including alternate weekends and half of school holiday periods. The court also made detailed orders regarding communication, information sharing, relocation restrictions, and parental conduct, including a prohibition on denigrating the other parent. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and the parties were ordered to attend upon a Family Consultant to explain the orders to the children. Neither party was permitted to make further applications to the court without leave.