Giltson and Basfield

The matter of Giltson and Basfield came before the Family Court of Australia for a final hearing. The parties, Mr. Giltson (Applicant) and Ms. Basfield (Respondent), agreed that the proceedings should be stood over part-heard. Interim orders were in place for the child to spend time with the father at a supervised contact centre, with a review and updated report to be prepared by a single expert. The mother applied for permission to travel overseas with the child during the Christmas school holiday period.

The court was required to determine three key issues. Firstly, whether the child should engage in therapeutic counselling with a nominated therapist, as sought by the mother, to assist with coping with changes and her mother's compliance with contact orders. Secondly, whether the mother's application to travel overseas with the child during the upcoming Christmas holidays should be granted. Thirdly, whether orders for drug testing of the father, including a hair follicle drug test, should be made.

Regarding the counselling, the court found that while the father and Independent Children's Lawyer opposed it, the child's best interests would be served by having a counsellor available if needed. The court considered that this would also assist the mother in coping with and complying with the contact orders, and help the child manage her mother's difficulties. The application for overseas travel was refused because the proposed travel dates would fall in the middle of the supervised contact regime, which the court deemed undesirable to unsettle, particularly given the mother's prior non-compliance with contact orders. The court ordered drug testing for the father, noting that he was free to adduce evidence regarding the reliability of the tests and potential contamination issues for the hair follicle test.

The court made orders for the child to spend time with the father at a supervised contact centre, with provisions for therapeutic counselling for the child, and for drug testing of the father. The mother's application for the child to travel overseas was refused. The proceedings were adjourned part-heard to a future date.