Harrington and Harrington and Anor

In the matter of *Harrington and Harrington and Anor*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the welfare of two children, B and C. The proceedings involved the parents, the Director-General of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (the Intervenor), and an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether to request the intervention of the Director-General in relation to the children's welfare. Additionally, the court needed to make orders regarding communication between the Father and the children, the provision of information to the Father about the children, and the requirement for the Mother to undergo hair follicle drug testing. The court also had to consider the terms of any interim parenting orders and the future conduct of the proceedings.

Kent J ordered the intervention of the Director-General pursuant to section 91B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and permitted the inspection and copying of court documents by an authorised person from the Department. By consent, interim orders were made, including that the Father was not to instigate contact with the children but could respond to their contact. The Intervenor was to provide weekly email updates to the Father regarding the children's schooling, activities, and welfare. The Mother was ordered to undergo hair follicle drug testing within two days of request, up to once per month, and was restrained from cutting her hair until the process was undertaken. The testing was to cover the last twelve months for five drug classes, and the Mother was required to provide photographic identification. The results were to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The matter was adjourned for further mention on 4 December 2017, with liberty to apply and with details of obligations and consequences of the orders annexed to the judgment.