Gibbins and Rainey

This matter concerned a dispute between the mother and father of a child, X, brought before Judge Cole. The proceedings involved the Minister for the Department of Family and Community Services as an intervener, and the court was tasked with making orders regarding the parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent with the child.

The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the nature and extent of contact between the child and each parent. Additionally, the court had to consider the child's wishes, the impact of parental conflict and family violence on the child, and the role of the paternal grandparents in the child's life. The court also needed to address specific behaviours of the parents that were detrimental to the child's well-being.

Judge Cole's reasoning was heavily influenced by the reports of Dr J, a psychologist, which detailed the child X's expressed fears of parental conflict and her desire to live with her father. However, the court considered these wishes within the broader context of serious concerns regarding the father's commitment to the mother-daughter relationship, the paternal grandparents' potential to undermine the child's transition, and the father's apparent emotional dependence on X. The court also noted that the child's narrative of past events appeared to have shifted in favour of the father over time. Consequently, the court made orders for a period of 24 months where the Minister would exercise parental responsibility, followed by the mother exercising sole parental responsibility. The child was to live as directed by the intervener and spend time with the father under supervised conditions, with provisions for suspension of contact for therapeutic purposes. The court also issued injunctions restraining both parents from denigrating each other in the child's presence, exposing the child to family violence, physically disciplining the child, or questioning the child about parental behaviour. The father was further restrained from approaching the child's residence, educational institution, or extra-curricular activity venues.