Harridge & Harridge

This case concerned parenting orders made by Murphy J in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved the father and paternal grandparents of two children, A and N, born in 2004 and 2005 respectively.

The court was required to determine the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and to make orders regarding the children's living arrangements, time spent with each parent and grandparents, communication, and other related matters. Crucially, the court had to consider the best interests of the children in light of the circumstances, which necessitated a detailed assessment of the father's situation and its potential impact on the children.

Murphy J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the best interests of the children. The court ordered that the children live with their mother and that she have sole parental responsibility for all major long-term issues. A family consultant was appointed under s 65L of the *Family Law Act 1975* to supervise compliance with the orders and to assist the father and paternal grandparents. The orders established a highly supervised and structured regime for any time the children might spend with the father and paternal grandparents, with significant emphasis on the involvement of the family consultant and the father's community corrections officer.

The court made detailed orders concerning communication, including restrictions on electronic communication and specific times for telephone contact. Furthermore, mandatory injunctions were issued requiring the parties to participate in the s 65L process, provide information regarding any courses undertaken concerning sexual offending involving children, and authorise the family consultant and Independent Children's Lawyer to discuss matters with relevant professionals. The father was specifically required to authorise his community corrections officer to provide details of any required treatment or counselling to the family consultant and Independent Children's Lawyer. The mother was ordered to keep the father and paternal grandparents informed of the children's residential address, contact details, and schooling, and to authorise the release of information regarding the children's progress to the father. The court also authorised publication of the orders and reasons for judgment to specific individuals and professionals involved in the father's supervision and treatment. The Independent Children's Lawyer was to be discharged after 12 months, with liberty to relist the matter.