Hamley and Hamley

In *Hamley and Hamley*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered an urgent application by the mother to suspend contact orders with the child and for the proceedings to be transferred to Brisbane. The father opposed this and sought interim orders for the child to reside with him in Melbourne and for the child to undergo psychiatric and educational assessments. The proceedings were conducted via video link between the Melbourne and Brisbane Registries, with the mother and her legal representative in Brisbane and the father, independent children's lawyer, and family consultant in Melbourne.

The court was required to determine the interim living arrangements for the child, a son born in September 1994, between the date of the hearing and the adjourned date of 19 April 2007. This involved assessing the mother's application to suspend contact and the father's counter-application for the child to reside with him. The court also had to consider the child's welfare, including the need to protect him from harm and the benefit of maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents, in light of significant concerns raised about the mother's parenting capacity and the child's emotional and educational well-being.

Bennett J dismissed the mother's application to suspend contact. The court reasoned that the mother had failed to comply with previous orders and had demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that undermined the child's relationship with his father. Expert evidence from a family consultant and a psychiatrist indicated that the mother's actions and psychological state were detrimental to the child's emotional health and his ability to form a healthy relationship with his father. The court found that the child's best interests would be served by spending uninterrupted time with the father, with significantly restricted communication with the mother, pending the adjourned hearing. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for the child's education and authorised to enrol him in a school.

Consequently, the court made orders for the child to reside with the father in Melbourne until the adjourned date, with limited telephone contact with the mother. A Recovery Order was issued authorising the Australian Federal Police to locate and deliver the child to the father if necessary. The mother was also restrained from entering Victoria during the periods the child was with the father. The court noted that these interim orders were designed to protect the child's emotional well-being and preserve his relationship with his father, given the mother's demonstrated inability to facilitate such a relationship.