Harrison and Halliday (No 4)

In *Harrison and Halliday (No 4)*, Dawe J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning the welfare and upbringing of a child, P. The proceedings involved the child's parents, with the Independent Children's Lawyer also participating. The dispute encompassed issues related to medical treatment, parental communication, and arrangements for the child's time with each parent, as well as the future conduct of the trial.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether to grant leave for the father to issue subpoenas to the South Australian Police and the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade. Further, the court had to consider the appropriateness of granting an injunction restraining both parents from arranging medical or dental treatment for the child without the other's written consent, except in emergencies. The court also addressed whether to restrain the mother from taking the child to a specific medical practitioner, Dr H, and the necessity of implementing a communication book for parental information exchange. Finally, the court considered the future trial management, including the length of the trial, the need for an updated family report, and arrangements for holiday celebrations.

Dawe J applied principles of child welfare and parental responsibility in making his orders. The court granted leave for the subpoenas, indicating a need for further information from those agencies. An injunction was granted to prevent unilateral medical decisions, emphasizing the importance of joint parental consent for non-emergency treatment, while also specifically restraining the mother from further treatment with Dr H pending further order. The court mandated the use of a communication book to improve information sharing between parents regarding the child's medical and social well-being. Recognizing the estimated length of the trial, the proceedings were referred for trial allocation, with directions to be given for an updated family report, acknowledging the previous report's author. The court also made specific orders for the father's time with the child and provided liberty to apply for urgent listing regarding Christmas and birthday celebrations if agreement could not be reached.