HERIOT & MAVERICK

This case involved an application before the Family Court of Australia concerning parenting orders for a child, V. The applicant mother, Ms Heriot, and the respondent father, Mr Maverick, both sought to vary existing interim orders regarding the child's time with the father. The Independent Children's Lawyer also made submissions. The matter was heard by Justice Macmillan in Melbourne.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, V, in relation to interim parenting arrangements pending a final hearing. Specifically, the mother sought to change the supervised contact arrangements to a different service, Berry Street Victoria Children's Contact Service, or alternatively, to prohibit a specific supervisor from HAN, Ms M, from attending. The father sought orders reflecting the recommendations of the Independent Children's Lawyer, which included his partner, Ms C, and her daughter, B, being present during his time with the child.

Justice Macmillan considered the paramountcy of the child's best interests under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the need to protect the child from harm and ensure meaningful involvement with both parents. The court noted that the central issue of alleged sexual abuse would be determined at trial and that interim orders could not definitively test the evidence. The judge was not satisfied that supervision by Berry Street was in the child's best interests due to the likely delay in contact. However, the court found that continuing the existing supervision regime by HAN, with the inclusion of the father's partner, Ms C, and her daughter, B, was appropriate. The court was satisfied that there was no evidence suggesting Ms C or B should be excluded, and their presence might be beneficial. The mother's objections to Ms M were primarily based on HAN's policy, not on any perceived risk from Ms M herself.

The court ordered that until the final hearing, the child V would spend time with the father fortnightly, supervised by a worker from Home Access Network, for no longer than three hours, at the father's cost. Crucially, the father's partner, Ms C, and her daughter, B, were permitted to be present during these times. The question of reimbursement by the mother for the costs of supervision was reserved for determination at the trial, and the oral applications of both parents were otherwise dismissed.