HARRIS & WINTERS

This case involved parenting proceedings concerning the child C, born in November 2006, between the applicant mother, Ms Harris, and the respondent father, Mr Winters. The proceedings were complicated by the child's medical conditions, the father's history of bipolar affective disorder and personality vulnerabilities, his residence in Papua New Guinea, the mother's new partner, and a highly conflicted parental relationship. The parties had resolved most issues by consent, but the court was asked to adjudicate on three outstanding matters: whether the child should spend time with the father during school holidays, the costs of supervised transitions, and whether the mother's new partner should be enjoined from approaching the father at events the father is permitted to attend.

The court was required to determine whether to order additional school holiday time for the child with the father, considering the father's mental health, the child's special needs, and the existing agreed arrangements for time with the father. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to grant an injunction preventing the mother's new partner from approaching the father at school or other events the father is permitted to attend, based on allegations of goading and intimidation by the partner. The court also noted that the issue of costs for facilitated transitions was deferred pending further submissions on child maintenance orders.

Regarding school holiday time, the court found that while the father and child have a strong attachment, the existing agreed arrangements, which included a gradual increase in time with the father culminating in overnight stays after eighteen months, struck the right balance for the child's well-being at that time. The court concluded that further school holiday time was not in the child's best interests at that juncture, emphasizing a cautious, gradual, and measured increase. Concerning the injunction, the court was not persuaded that it was in the child's best interests to restrain the mother's partner from approaching the father. The court was satisfied that the partner, like the parents, would focus on the child's best interests and could exercise restraint and sensitivity to avoid conflict, especially given the low prospect of frequent encounters.

The court made no further orders regarding additional school holiday time or the injunction sought against the mother's partner. The matters of child maintenance and the costs of facilitated changeovers remained outstanding and were to be addressed after further submissions from the parties.