Halstead and Lees & Anor (No 2)

In *Halstead and Lees & Anor (No 2)*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered two distinct applications concerning the welfare of two children, X and Y. The first dispute involved the mother's opposition to a family consultant conducting an observed interaction between the children and their father and paternal grandmother. The father, who uses a wheelchair following a significant injury, had not seen the children since his injury, and they were unaware of its extent. The children had been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum and were receiving support from therapists. The second dispute concerned the mother's application to travel internationally with the children for up to 14 days, which was opposed by the father and paternal grandmother.

The court was required to determine whether to place any restrictions on the family consultant regarding the observed interaction between the children and their father and paternal grandmother, given the children's diagnoses and the father's injury. Additionally, the court had to consider the father's and paternal grandmother's opposition to the mother's proposed international travel with the children and whether to grant such permission, and if so, under what conditions, including the provision of security.

Regarding the family assessment, Berman J ruled that the family consultant would be at liberty to observe the interaction between the children and their father and paternal grandmother, subject to consultation with the children's psychologists. The court ordered that the mother must present the children for family assessment and the preparation of a Family Report as directed by the family consultant or Director of Court Counselling. The family consultant was granted liberty to conduct the observed interaction on terms considered necessary to promote the children's interests. In relation to the international travel, the mother was permitted to take the children to Thailand for up to 14 consecutive days in January 2020. This permission was subject to stringent conditions, including the provision of a detailed itinerary and accommodation details to the father seven days prior to travel, confirmation of the children's return, and an injunction restraining the mother from disbursing $40,000 from her solicitors' trust account pending the children's return. The maternal grandmother was ordered to accompany the children on all flights. The mother was also authorised to exercise sole parental responsibility for passport renewal for X and was ordered to lodge the children's passports with the court upon their return.