Ghazal & Edmiston

In the matter of *Ghazal & Edmiston*, heard before Obradovic J, the applicant father, Mr Ghazal, and the respondent mother, Ms Edmiston, were parties to proceedings concerning their two children, X and Y. The dispute centred on parental responsibility, the children's living arrangements, and the father's contact with them, as well as international travel and passport issuance.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included the allocation of sole parental responsibility for the children, where the children should live, the extent of any time or communication the children should have with the father, and whether the mother should be permitted to travel internationally with the children without the father's consent. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the father's entitlement to apply for and be issued with Australian passports for the children, and whether to impose restraining orders against the father.

Obradovic J's reasoning was heavily influenced by the history of family violence and the father's persistent harassment and intimidation of the mother and children following their separation. The court noted the existence of an interim apprehended domestic violence order made in December 2012, which was subsequently made final in January 2013 for two years. The judgment detailed numerous instances between January 2013 and January 2014 where the father engaged in behaviour described as an "unrelenting campaign of harassment and intimidation," including unwanted approaches, persistent communication via text messages, gifts, and appearances at the mother's home and public places frequented by the mother and children. The court applied principles related to the best interests of the children and the need to protect them and the primary caregiver from family violence.

Consequently, the court made orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility for X and Y, stipulating that the children shall live with the mother. The orders further directed that the children shall spend no time and have no communication with the father. The mother was permitted to travel internationally with the children without the father's consent and was designated as the sole person with parental responsibility for passport applications. Pursuant to section 65Y of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the mother was entitled to remove the children from Australia as she desired, and pursuant to section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the father was restrained from contacting the mother or children by any means and from approaching specified locations.