GRISHIN & EBBS

The case of *Grishin & Ebbs* involved parents seeking orders regarding their child, T, born in January 2011. The dispute concerned the arrangements for T's residence, time spent with each parent, and communication between the parents. The matter was heard by Hannam J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the specific terms of parental responsibility, residence, and contact arrangements for the child. This included establishing a schedule for T to live with one parent and spend time with the other, as well as outlining provisions for holidays and special occasions. Additionally, the court needed to address communication protocols between the parents and implement protective measures concerning alcohol consumption, denigration, corporal punishment, and abusive communication. The court also considered the independent representation of the child's interests and the process for random alcohol testing of the parents.

Hannam J made orders by consent and by way of injunction, establishing joint parental responsibility with the child to live with the mother. A detailed schedule was set out for the father's time with the child, which was to progressively increase over time. Provisions were also made for holiday periods and special occasions, with specific arrangements for Father's Day, Mother's Day, the child's birthday, and Christmas. The court mandated the use of a communication book and advised mobile numbers for emergency contact, with an emphasis on respectful and informative communication. Crucially, injunctions were imposed restraining both parents from consuming alcohol prior to or during their care of the child, denigrating the other parent, using corporal punishment, or sending abusive messages. The court also ordered random carbohydrate transferring deficient (CTD) blood tests for both parents, to be requested by an Independent Children's Lawyer. Further orders addressed the mother's assessment and treatment for alcohol misuse and emotional regulation, with the Independent Children's Lawyer to be informed of treatment providers.

The court ordered that the interests of the child, T, be independently represented by a lawyer pursuant to section 68L of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), with the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales requested to secure appropriate representation. Leave was granted to the Independent Children's Lawyer to issue subpoenas, have photocopy access to subpoenaed documents, and relist the matter on short notice. The matter was relisted for mention on 23 January 2015, and the parties were granted liberty to restore the matter on 14 days' notice.