Halifax and Halifax (No. 2)

In the matter of *Halifax and Halifax (No. 2)*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning the child, X. The proceedings involved Ms Halifax (the applicant mother) and Mr Halifax (the respondent father), with an Independent Children's Lawyer also participating. The central dispute revolved around whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to X, particularly in relation to the progression of X's time with him from supervised to unsupervised contact.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the father's past threats and statements, made to an adult child of the relationship who gave evidence, created an unacceptable risk to X. A key issue was the father's insight into the impact of these threats and statements. The court also had to consider the father's demonstrated commitment to X and his relationship with her, weighed against the constraints imposed by ongoing supervision and X's own views on the matter.

Kent J reasoned that while the father's threats and statements to the older child were serious and confronting, and indicated a lack of insight, a progression to unsupervised time with X would not pose an unacceptable risk in the circumstances. The court noted the father's long-standing commitment to X and his relationship with her, and that a move towards unsupervised time would be consistent with X's views. The court also acknowledged the need to protect X from risks similar to those experienced by the older child, but found that X's increasing maturity and the implementation of safeguards would accommodate these risks.

The court made orders for X to live with the mother, with the parents sharing equal parental responsibility for decisions regarding X's international travel and passports. The orders detailed a progression of X's time with the father, commencing with supervised contact at a contact centre and transitioning to unsupervised time, including alternate weekends and periods during school holidays. A Family Consultant was appointed to assist with the progression to unsupervised time, and the mother was at liberty to engage X in counselling. The Independent Children's Lawyer was to be discharged, subject to any appeal.