Gaucho and Gaucho

In *Gaucho & Gaucho*, the Family Court of Australia considered an interim application by the mother seeking to spend unsupervised time with the child, H. The proceedings, which had been ongoing for some years, concerned parenting orders for the child, born in November 2006. The mother's application sought to vary existing interim orders, which stipulated that all her time with the child be supervised, pending the final determination of the matter.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the child's best interests to grant the mother unsupervised time, particularly in light of concerns regarding her mental health and the potential risk to the child's emotional and psychological wellbeing should her mental health deteriorate. The Court was required to balance the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect the child from any risk of abuse or harm. The Court also considered the applicability of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility at this interim stage, concluding it was not appropriate to consider given the parties' inability to negotiate.

Justice Dawe applied the principles established in *Goode & Goode* and *M v M*, focusing on the need to protect the child from unacceptable risk. The Court reviewed expert reports, including those from a Family Consultant and an independent psychiatrist, which detailed the mother's mental health status and the child's developmental progress and anxieties. While the Family Consultant recommended commencing some unsupervised time with specific monitoring, the Court was not satisfied that there was no unacceptable risk to the child's emotional and psychological health. This was based on the ongoing need for the child's therapeutic intervention and the Court's inability at this interim stage to definitively assess the likelihood of the mother's mental health deteriorating and the consequent risk to the child.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the mother's application to vary the interim orders. The existing orders, which provided for supervised time with the child, were continued pending the final trial. The Court also noted that the mother would continue to meet with her psychiatrist, Dr N, and that the father would ensure the child continued to attend upon his therapist, Dr P, with the mother being informed of the child's progress.