HICKSON & GREEN

In the matter of *Hickson & Green*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning four children aged between thirteen and nine years. The applicant father sought orders for the children to continue living with him, with the mother’s time to be supervised or unsupervised subject to strict conditions. The respondent mother sought a reversal of residence and for the father’s time to be dependent on a finding of risk. The dispute involved complex issues arising from the mother's history of substance use and mental health issues, her inability to protect the children from her emotions, and attempts to undermine the father's relationship with one of the children.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, specifically with whom they should live and spend time, and the appropriate form of parental responsibility. Key legal issues included assessing the risk of emotional and physical harm in the mother's household, the impact of a change in residence on the children's stability, and whether equal shared parental responsibility was in the children's best interests, particularly given the high level of conflict during the parties' relationship. The court also considered the submission by the Independent Children’s Lawyer that supervised time was not a long-term solution.

Cleary J reasoned that the children were not at risk of harm in the father's care, but there was an unacceptable risk of emotional and possible physical harm in the mother's household. The court found that the mother had significant restrictions on her parenting capacity, as identified by a court-appointed single expert. Applying the factors under s 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court concluded that a change in residence would be destructive of the children's stability. Consequently, the court ordered that the children live with the father and that the father have sole parental responsibility, with provisions for the mother to be kept informed of long-term decisions. The mother was ordered to have supervised time with the children at a contact centre on four occasions per year until each child turned fourteen, with no direct communication permitted. Various restraints and injunctions were also imposed on the mother.