Hambleden & Wakeford

In the matter of *Hambleden & Wakeford*, Hartnett J made final parenting orders by consent between Mr Hambleden (Applicant father), Ms Wakeford (First Respondent mother), and Ms Rayhill (Second Respondent maternal great-grandmother). The dispute concerned parenting arrangements for the child, X, who lived with Ms Rayhill. The father sought time with X, despite never having met her and having a criminal background. All parties requested limited reasons regarding the single expert's evidence concerning potential future changed circumstances.

The court was required to determine the final parenting orders by consent, addressing issues of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the time the child would spend with the mother. Additionally, the court needed to consider orders regarding the father's contact with the child and the protected persons, including injunctions for their personal protection. The court also noted specific conditions and understandings between the parties concerning future arrangements and the mother's involvement.

The court made final parenting orders by consent, discharging all previous orders. Ms Rayhill was granted sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions concerning X, with specific obligations to inform and genuinely consider the mother's views on major decisions. X was ordered to live with Ms Rayhill. The orders detailed the mother's time with X, including specific days and times, and outlined communication arrangements. Crucially, the father consented to orders that X would spend no time with him and have no communication with him. The court also made orders pursuant to s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) restraining Mr Hambleden from approaching or contacting the protected persons (X, Ms Rayhill, and Ms Wakeford) and from coming within 500m of their homes, workplaces, or X's school. These orders were to be recorded in the police database.