Harper and Cotter

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Harper (the applicant husband) and Ms Cotter (the respondent wife) brought applications concerning their child, Brooke Harper. Mr Harper sought orders to remove Brooke from Ms Cotter's care and place her with him, with only supervised contact for Ms Cotter. Ms Cotter applied to suspend Mr Harper's time with Brooke, proposing no specific future arrangements beyond awaiting a trial. The Independent Children's Lawyer, Mr Holmes, recommended that both applications be dismissed.

The court was required to determine whether to vary the existing consent orders made in February 2009, which provided for Brooke to live with her mother and spend time with her father on alternate weekends and Wednesday nights. Specifically, the court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties regarding allegations of parental misconduct and the child's welfare, and decide if either party's application for final parenting orders met the threshold for intervention or alteration of the existing arrangements. The court also considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and whether it should be ignored in this interim application.

Justice Cronin found that neither party had presented evidence sufficient to warrant altering the 2009 orders, nor had they demonstrated that the child was at an unacceptable risk of harm in the care of either parent. The court noted the highly conflictual nature of the parents' relationship and the involvement of external agencies such as the Department of Human Services and the police, but concluded that there was no basis for departmental intervention. Applying the principles of the Family Law Act, particularly the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, the court determined that the existing orders should be varied to facilitate contact through a contact centre, given the wife was now home-schooling the child.

The court ordered that the existing consent orders of 23 February 2009 be varied to facilitate contact between Mr Harper and Brooke at a contact centre, commencing as soon as practicable. Both parties were ordered to take all necessary steps to enrol at a contact centre for handovers. Furthermore, the applications filed by both Mr Harper and Ms Cotter were dismissed, the hearing fixed for 5 September was vacated, and all outstanding applications for final parenting orders were adjourned to a date to be fixed. The orders also included particulars regarding obligations, consequences of contravention, and assistance, as set out in an attached Fact Sheet.